FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50100
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00460-DDP-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
VINCENT ANTHONY JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 8, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Vincent Anthony Jones (Jones) appeals the district court’s denial of his
motions to suppress evidence found in his car after he was arrested for bank
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
robbery. Jones also appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a Franks1
hearing.
1. The district court did not err when it denied Jones’s motions to suppress
evidence seized from the first search of his car based on the determination that the
search was justified by probable cause. See United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d
1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the
circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
will be found in a particular place.”) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
2. Likewise, the district court did not err in concluding that the second search
was justified for the same reason. See United States v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624, 634
(9th Cir. 2009), as amended (“[T]he justification to conduct a warrantless search
does not vanish once the car has been immobilized, and there is no requirement
that the warrantless search of a vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful
seizure. . . .”) (citations, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). In any
1
See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
Page 2 of 3
event, the second search was executed pursuant to a search warrant supported by
an adequate and not misleading affidavit.
3. The district court also did not err in denying Jones’s request for a Franks
hearing based on its conclusion that no information was deliberately or recklessly
omitted from the affidavit. See United States v. Flyer, 633 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.
2011); see also Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because probable cause would still exist had the omitted information been
included, “no constitutional error has occurred.” Bravo v. City of Santa Maria,
665 F.3d 1076, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
Page 3 of 3