United States v. John Hardy , 543 F. App'x 721 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10365
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00137-DAE-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN ROBERT HARDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 8, 2013
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. The district court didn’t clearly err when it found Hardy’s consent to the
officers’ entrance into the room to be voluntary. See United States v. Washington,
490 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 2007). Hardy wasn’t in custody. There’s no evidence
the officers had their guns drawn or told him compliance would be compelled. See
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2
United States v. Kim, 25 F.3d 1426, 1432 (9th Cir. 1994). And, although he
wasn’t told that he didn’t have to consent, he knew he could say no: He twice
refused to let the officers in the hotel room and withheld consent to search the
backpack. See id.Because Hardy consented to the entry into the hotel room, we need not
address whether Hardy had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it.
2. The district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Hardy abandoned the
backpack by denying ownership. See United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466,
1469 (9th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.