Flores

United States v. Flores

Good Law
288 F. App'x 365
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 2008No. 07-50345California744 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Alex Flores appeals from a conditional guilty plea to unauthorized possession of stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 , unauthorized access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (a)(3), and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as is necessary to explain our decision. A district court’s denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo. United States v. Howard, 447 F.3d 1257 , 1262 n. 4 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

*366 I.

Flores contends that the police did not establish probable cause to believe that he lived at the residence that was searched. We disagree. Prior to conducting a search of a parolee’s residence, law enforcement officers must have probable cause to believe that the parolee is a resident of the location to be searched. Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); see also Cuevas v. De Roco, 531 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th Cir.2008). The probable cause requirement is met when the “totality of the circumstances” would lead a man of “reasonable caution” to believe that the parolee lives at the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.