United States v. Bertha Calvillo-Nieves

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-30418
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:05-cr-30013-AA-1
v.
BERTHA ALLCIA CALVILLO-NIEVES, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2009**
Portland, Oregon
Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Berta Allcia Calvillo-Nieves appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion to suppress. Because the warrant authorizing police to search
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Calvillo-Nieves’ home describes the premises to be searched with sufficient
particularity, we affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo, and the
factual findings underlying the denial for clear error. United States v. Brobst, 558
F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2009). We review a district court’s determination
regarding the specificity of a warrant de novo. Id.
The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant particularly describe
the place to be searched. U.S. Const. amend. IV. A warrant that contains the
wrong address for the premises to be searched nonetheless satisfies the Fourth
Amendment’s particularity requirement when “‘no nearby house met the warrant’s
detailed description; the address in the warrant was reasonable for the location
intended; the house had been under surveillance before the warrant was sought; the
warrant was executed by an officer who had participated in applying for the
warrant and who personally knew which premises were intended to be searched;
and the premises that were intended to be searched were those actually searched.’”
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United
States v. Turner, 770 F.2d 1508, 1511 (9th Cir. 1985)). The record establishes that
all of these conditions were satisfied in this case. Thus, the warrant police obtained
before searching Calvillo-Nieves’s home satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s
2
particularity requirement. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of
Calvillo-Nieves’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
3