United States v. Benjamin Ruiz

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 24 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10447
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00236-LJO-
SKO-1
v.
BENJAMIN RUIZ, AKA Benny Ruiz, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: MELLOY,*** IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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 Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Benjamin Ruiz appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence
obtained pursuant to a search warrant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Given the totality of the circumstances, there was a substantial basis for the
magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause. See United States v. Angulo-Lopez,
791 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1986). The informant’s veracity was supported by
his statements of his own receipt of child pornography, which were admissions
against penal interest. See id. at 1397. The informant’s affidavit stating that he
had lived with Ruiz and still communicated with him via email established his
firsthand knowledge of Ruiz’s crime. See United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 919,
925 (9th Cir. 2001). Independent police corroboration of Ruiz’s location and
status as a sex offender, increased confidence in the informant’s veracity and basis
of knowledge. See Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d at 1397. The informant’s motive to
cooperate with the police did not destroy his credibility, see Bishop, 264 F.3d at
926, and the magistrate judge properly considered the informant’s motivation as
part of the totality of the circumstances.
The information supporting the search warrant was not stale because the
informant’s statements on his continuing communication with Ruiz and the
affiant’s statements on the crime of child pornography established a “sufficient
basis to believe . . . that the items to be seized [were] still on the premises.” United
2
States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 745–46 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
AFFIRMED
3