United States v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 29 December 2022
• Docket Number: 20-50345
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Edward Charles ANDERSON, aka Johnathan Anderson, aka Johnathan Edward Anderson, aka Jonathan Charles Anderson, aka Jonathan Edward Anderson, aka Jonathan Edward Cha Anderson, aka Jonathon Edward Anderson, aka X Rage, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

56 F.4th 748

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Jonathan Edward Charles ANDERSON, aka Johnathan Anderson, aka Johnathan Edward Anderson, aka Jonathan Charles Anderson, aka Jonathan Edward Anderson, aka Jonathan Edward Cha Anderson, aka Jonathon Edward Anderson, aka X Rage, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50345

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2022 Pasadena, California

Filed December 29, 2022

Gia Kim (argued), Trial Attorney; Ashwini S. Mate, Deputy Federal Public Defender; Cuauhtemoc Ortega, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant.

Byron R. Tuyay (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Riverside, California; Bram M. Alden, Assistant United States Attorney, Criminal Appeals Section Chief, Office of the United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California; Tracy L. Wilkison, Acting United States Attorney; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Kenneth K. Lee, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion;

Partial Dissent by Judge Lee ;

Partial Dissent by Judge Forrest

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Jonathan Anderson was stopped for a license-plate violation, and deputies from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (SBCSD) discovered that he had an expired driver's license and a long criminal history. The deputies conducted an inventory search before towing Anderson's truck, and, after finding a handgun under the driver's seat of his truck, they arrested Anderson for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Anderson moved to suppress the handgun, arguing that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment because the inventory search was invalid. The district court denied his motion, and Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea retaining his right to appeal the suppression decision. The district court sentenced Anderson to a prison term followed by three years' supervised release. Anderson appeals the denial of his suppression motion and one of the conditions of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court's suppression order and vacate as unconstitutionally vague Standard Condition 14 of Anderson's term of supervised release.

I

A

At approximately 2:00 a.m., SBCSD Deputy Daniel Peterson noticed the license plate on Anderson's truck was partially obscured in violation of California Vehicle Code § 5201, so he initiated a traffic stop. According to Deputy Peterson, after he activated his lights, Anderson abruptly turned onto a dead-end street and accelerated to the end of the road. Deputy Peterson called for backup and alerted dispatch that Anderson was "slow to stop" and "pulling into an apartment complex." About 30 to 45 seconds after Deputy Peterson initiated the stop, Anderson pulled into the driveway of a home and got out of his truck.

Deputy Peterson believed that Anderson was attempting to flee and confronted him at gunpoint. He instructed Anderson to turn around, put his hands up, and kneel down. Anderson, who disputes that he was trying to flee, complied with the request and repeatedly asked why he had been pulled over. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Kyle Schuler arrived and handcuffed Anderson. Anderson told the deputies that he was parked in the driveway of "a friend" and that his license was expired. He also stated that he did not see Deputy Peterson's overhead lights and that he was not from the area. Deputy Peterson radioed dispatch. 2:05 a.m., dispatch informed the deputies that Anderson had an expired license and was a career criminal.

The parties dispute what happened next. According to Anderson, Deputy Peterson began searching his truck within seconds of learning that he was a career criminal. The deputies claim that the search did not happen immediately and Deputy Peterson only picked up Anderson's keys from where he had thrown them in the lawn. At this point in the incident, Anderson is heard on Deputy Peterson's belt recording saying: "You can't check my truck ... why can you search my truck?" The deputies told Anderson that they were going to tow his truck because he did not have a valid license and that they needed to conduct an inventory search. The deputies refused Anderson's request to have a friend come get his truck.

After detaining Anderson in the back of a patrol car, the deputies testified that before they started the search, Deputy Schuler spoke to the owner of the home where Anderson parked to confirm whether he knew Anderson. Anderson claims that the deputies did not talk to the homeowner until after they completed the inventory search. There is no dispute that the homeowner did not know Anderson and wanted Anderson's truck removed from his driveway. During the inventory search, Deputy Peterson found a loaded handgun under the driver's seat and arrested Anderson for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The entire incident, from when Deputy Peterson noticed Anderson's obscured license plate to when he called in the gun to dispatch, lasted approximately seven minutes. Deputy Schuler stayed at the scene after Anderson was taken to jail to complete the requirements of the SBCSD Manual, which provides a standard administrative procedure for an inventory search. According to the SBCSD Manual, when a deputy stores or impounds a vehicle, the deputy "shall [c]omplete two (2) CHP 180 Forms," which include "an inventory of any personal property contained within the vehicle," and "the signature, date, and time of the arrival of the tow truck driver." The deputy must also "[e]nsure that the report is immediately completed and processed."

In complying with these requirements, Deputy Schuler completed most of the information required by the CHP 180 form, including checking off boxes to show the presence of two radios and a firearm in the car, although he did not document other property in the car, such as two pairs of sunglasses, a watch, a box of tools, and a bottle of cologne. Deputy Schuler also filled out the portion of the CHP 180 form for indicating existing scratches, dents, and damage to the truck. As required by the SBCSD Manual, Deputy Schuler included the tow truck driver's signature and time of arrival on the CHP 180 form. The deputies submitted the form for processing the same day. In addition to filling out the form, the deputies took photographs of property found inside the car, including a speaker, iPhone cord, and tools, and also completed a police report documenting that a compact disc, gun, holster, and ammunition were found in the car.

B

The government charged Anderson with a single count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Anderson moved to suppress evidence of the firearm on the grounds that the inventory search was unconstitutional. First, he claimed that the deputies lacked a valid "community caretaking purpose" when they conducted the search. Second, he argued that the deputies violated California law when impounding his truck. Third, he argued that, even if there was a valid community caretaking purpose, the search was invalid because the deputies did not follow SBCSD procedures in conducting the search and they had an impermissible investigatory motive.

After the suppression hearing, during which the deputies and the homeowner testified, the district court held that the search was proper and denied Anderson's motion. The district court found that Anderson did not have a valid driver's license and that the homeowner did not know Anderson or want the truck on his property. Regarding whether there was a valid community caretaking purpose for impounding the truck, the key question for the district court was "whether or not [the deputies] searched the car before or after they talked to the homeowner" and learned that he did not know Anderson. The court noted that "there [were] a lot of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony." But based on "the credibility and looking at what [was] speculative and what [was] the evidence," the court found that the record established that the deputies did "talk to the homeowner before they searched the car."¹ The district court did not address whether the deputies complied with California law or SBCSD policy or whether they had an impermissible motive for the search.

Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the suppression order, and the district court sentenced him to 77 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. The district court imposed numerous standard conditions as part of Anderson's supervised release, including that he "notify specific persons and organizations of specific risks posed by [him] to those persons and organizations."

II

We review de novo a "district court's rulings on motions to suppress." United States v. Barnes , 895 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The "district court's underlying factual findings" are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Lara , 815 F.3d 605, 608 (9th Cir. 2016). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when it is "illogical, implausible, or without support in the record." United States v. Spangle , 626 F.3d 488, 497 (9th Cir. 2010). Where "testimony is taken, the district court's credibility determinations are given special deference." United States v. Arreguin , 735 F.3d 1168, 1174 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

A

The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment's "essential purpose" is "to impose a standard of ‘reasonableness’ upon the exercise of discretion by government officials, including law enforcement agents, in order ‘to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary...