United States v. Magdirila

• Decision Date: 23 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-50430,18-50430
• Citation: 962 F.3d 1152
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Christopher MAGDIRILA, aka John Christopher Gambol Magdrila, aka Jose Francis Hernandez-Castillo, aka JC, aka Sike, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

962 F.3d 1152

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.John Christopher MAGDIRILA, aka John Christopher Gambol Magdrila, aka Jose Francis Hernandez-Castillo, aka JC, aka Sike, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50430

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 13, 2020 Pasadena, California

Filed June 23, 2020

OPINION

R. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

During a search of a vehicle John Magdirila was driving, officers found methamphetamine, a firearm, and counterfeit currency. The district court denied Magdirila's motion to suppress this contraband, holding it was discovered during a valid inventory search. Magdirila then entered a conditional plea agreement and was sentenced to 41 months in prison. The district court also imposed General, Specific, and Standard Conditions of Supervised Release. We affirm the denial of Magdirila's motion to suppress. We vacate, however, the challenged Conditions and remand for the district court to revise them.

I

Officers Mark Robinson and Tyler Villicana were on patrol in Inglewood, California, as part of a tactical response to a surge in gang activity in the area. At nearly 11:00 pm, Robinson observed a black Infiniti stopped in an alley with its engine running and "lights ... illuminated as if the driver had the foot on the brake." The vehicle was parked in violation of Inglewood Municipal Code 3-50 and lacked permanent—as opposed to dealer-issued—license plates, in violation of California Vehicle Code § 5200(a).

Villicana activated the cruiser's lights and siren, causing the vehicle's passenger, D.R., to "spontaneously" exit the vehicle. Upon questioning by Villicana, D.R. admitted he was on parole and was detained pending further investigation. After detaining D.R., Villicana ran a warrants inquiry for D.R. The inquiry confirmed that D.R. was on parole and subject to a search condition.

As Villicana questioned D.R., Robinson approached the Infiniti and observed Magdirila sitting in the driver's seat with the engine on and his foot on the brake. Magdirila admitted he did not have a driver's license and stated the vehicle belonged to a friend. Robinson, pursuant to the Inglewood Police Department Vehicle Towing and Release Policy (the "Policy"), decided "from the moment that ... [Magdirila] admitted he did not have a driver's license" to impound the vehicle.

Robinson then searched the glove compartment of the vehicle and found a bag of what he believed was crystal methamphetamine.

When asked who the crystal methamphetamine belonged to, Magdirila claimed ownership. Robinson arrested Magdirila for possession of methamphetamine in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11377(a), and searched the rest of the vehicle.

During the inventory search, Robinson found a lockbox in the back seat of the vehicle resting on top of a backpack. Magdirila claimed ownership of the lockbox and backpack. Inside the lockbox, Robinson found a loaded semi-automatic pistol, an air pistol, a USB drive, and Magdirila's EBT card.

Robinson's decision to impound the vehicle triggered a duty under the Policy to take an "accurate" inventory of the vehicle's contents on a CHP 180 form. The Policy requires officers to list "[a]ll property in a stored or impounded vehicle" and to "be as thorough and accurate as practical in preparing an itemized inventory." In the "REMARKS" section of the CHP 180 form, Villicana cross-referenced the police report and noted that the vehicle contained an "IPHONE/APPLE WATCH." In the police report, Robinson listed items contained in the car including, but not limited to, a black backpack, air pistol, ink cartridges, USB flash drive, and an American Express credit card.

Magdirila moved to suppress "all evidence and statements obtained as a result of his unlawful arrest, search, and questioning." The Government opposed suppression, relying primarily on declarations from Robinson and Villicana, along with the CHP 180 form and police report. During a hearing on the motion to suppress, the district court heard testimony from Robinson, Villicana, and Magdirila.

After the hearing, the district court denied Magdirila's motion to suppress the contraband and made the following factual findings:

1. "the Infiniti was illegally parked in an alleyway and ... was without proper license plates";

2. "the officers impounded the Infiniti because the owner of the car was not present, the [defendant] was unlicensed and did not have any evidence that he was authorized to drive the car, and the car was parked in and blocking an alley";

3. "Robinson impounded the Infiniti pursuant to the [Inglewood Police Department's] Vehicle Towing and Release Policy ... [at] the moment that defendant admitted that he did not have a driver's license"; and

4. "[t]he record demonstrates that Robinson conducted an inventory search of the Infiniti pursuant to the Vehicle Inventory requirements set forth in section 510.4 of Towing Policy, and that Villicana completed CHP Form 180 pursuant to the Vehicle Storage Report requirements set forth in section 510.2.1."

United States v. Magdirila , No. 2:17-CR-00729-CAS-1, 2018 WL 1472498, at *4, *6, *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).¹ In light of those findings, the district court held that the contraband was the fruit of a properly conducted inventory search. Magdirila subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea, and the district court sentenced him to 41 months in prison.

The district court also imposed Standard and Specific Conditions of Supervised Release. Additionally, the district court incorporated and imposed conditions of supervised release from United States District Court for the Central District of California General Order 05-02—which we refer to as General Order Conditions. The five General Order, Specific, and Standard Conditions relevant to this appeal are:

1. General Order Condition 5 : "The defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities," General Order 05-02, United States District Court for the Central District of California (Jan. 18, 2005), https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general-orders/GO-05-02.pdf (last visited June 3, 2020);

2. General Order Condition 6 : "The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons," id. ;

3. General Order Condition 14 : "As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's compliance with such notification requirement," id. ;

4. Specific Condition 2 : "As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify specific persons and organizations of specific risks and shall permit the probation officer to confirm the defendant's compliance with such requirement and to make such notifications";

5. Standard Condition 14 : "As directed by the probation officer, the defendant must notify specific persons and organizations of specific risks posed by the defendant to those persons and organizations and must permit the probation officer to confirm the defendant's compliance with such requirement and to make such notifications."

Magdirila timely appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and the imposition of these five conditions. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II

The denial of Magdirila's motion to suppress is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Tan Duc Nguyen , 673 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court's underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Barnes , 895 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2018). Where the district court does not make a finding on a precise factual issue relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis, we "uphold a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress if there was a reasonable view to support it." United States v. Gooch , 506 F.3d 1156, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007).

III

We address whether Magdirila has waived certain arguments challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and then turn to whether the district court erred in its denial.

A

We begin with the Government's waiver claims. Except for good cause, a motion to suppress must "be raised by pretrial motion." Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(C) ; see also United States v. Guerrero , 921 F.3d 895, 897–98 (9th Cir. 2019). Defendants ordinarily may not raise new grounds for suppression on appeal. See United States v. Keesee , 358 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 2004). That is, a defendant may not (1) assert facts contradicting the facts he or she asserted before the district court, id. ; (2) rely on facts that were not raised before or relied upon by the district court, Guerrero , 921 F.3d at 898 ; or (3) make a new legal argument in support of suppression, unless the issue does not affect or rely on the factual record developed by the parties, see United States v. Hawkins , 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2001). An argument is not waived if "the district court nevertheless addressed the merits of the issue not explicitly raised by the party." Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1260 n.8 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, Magdirila preserved both of his central arguments on appeal—that the officers "had an improper subjective motivation that rendered the search pretextual" and that "the inventory search was invalid because officers conducted their search in a manner inconsistent with the Policy."

With respect to his broad pretext argument, Magdirila claimed the inventory search was a "post-hoc justification" for an illegal search at inception. During the suppression hearing, Magdirila questioned Robinson about his state of mind during the time of the search, apparently to demonstrate...