United States v. Jose Rodriguez , 695 F. App'x 339 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 16 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50328
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:14-cr-00590-CAS-1
v.
JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 7, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the driver
of the car in which Rodriguez was riding of breaking the law, and they therefore
had a “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to lawfully stop the vehicle. See Cal.
Vehicle Code §§ 5200, 4456(c), 11715; see also Heien v. N. Carolina, 135 S. Ct.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
530, 536 (2014). The officers lawfully asked Rodriguez to step out of the car for
the duration of the stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110–111 &
n.6 (1977). Rodriguez dropped drugs as he exited. When the officers found the
drugs, they had probable cause to arrest him, and the subsequent search of the car
in which he had been a passenger was lawful. See United States v.
Pinela–Hernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977–79 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court
properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car and
the statements he made after his arrest. See id.AFFIRMED.
2