United States v. Bernard Glenn , 452 F. App'x 795 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         FILED
    OCT 07 2011
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      No. 10-30287
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 3:09-cr-05668-RBL-1
    Western District of Washington,
    v.                                           Tacoma
    BERNARD GLENN,
    ORDER
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Before: NOONAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.*
    The memorandum disposition filed on August 4, 2011 is hereby withdrawn.
    The petition for rehearing is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 40.
    *
    The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge for the U.S. District
    Court for Northern California, San Jose, sitting by designation.
    FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                OCT 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-30287
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:09-cr-05668-RBL-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    BERNARD GLENN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 1, 2011**
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: NOONAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.***
    Bernard Glenn (“Glenn”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
    suppress a firearm found on his person. Following the denial of his suppression
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge for the U.S. District
    Court for Northern California, sitting by designation.
    motion, Glenn was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and we affirm.
    We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, while reviewing for
    clear error the underlying factual findings. United States v. Davis, 
    530 F.3d 1069
    ,
    1077 (9th Cir. 2008).
    Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court articulated several bases
    for finding that the government had met its burden of showing the gun should not
    be suppressed. Each of those grounds was independently sufficient for the police
    to search Glenn, and for the court to deny the suppression motion.
    In his opening brief, Glenn failed to address several of those grounds, in
    particular the district court’s finding that he was subject to a valid probationary
    search. “Generally, an issue is waived when the appellant does not specifically and
    distinctly argue the issue in his or her opening brief.” United States v. Brooks, 
    610 F.3d 1186
    , 1202 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Even assuming Glenn had properly raised the probation search issue, the
    district court was correct. Probation searches satisfy the demands of the Fourth
    Amendment when they are conducted pursuant to a state law that itself satisfies the
    Fourth Amendment. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 
    483 U.S. 868
    , 873 (1987). The
    2
    Washington statute in effect at the time–since revised in a manner not relevant
    here–required Glenn to submit to a search of his person when there was reasonable
    cause to believe he had violated a requirement of his probation. See 
    Wash. Rev. Code § 9
    .94A.631 (2003). This court has confirmed that the Washington statute
    allowing probation searches based on reasonable cause satisfies the reasonableness
    standard of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Conway, 
    122 F.3d 841
    , 842
    (9th Cir. 1997).
    The police officer who searched Glenn knew Glenn was under community
    custody, or probation. Moreover, the officer had reasonable cause to believe Glenn
    was in violation of several of the conditions of community custody, including (1)
    constructive possession of a controlled substance, (2) association with drug sellers,
    and (3) consumption of alcohol. The officer’s search was reasonable under the
    Fourth Amendment. The district court did not err in denying Glenn’s motion to
    suppress the firearm.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-30287

Citation Numbers: 452 F. App'x 795

Judges: Fogel, Noonan, Smith

Filed Date: 10/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023