Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Ryan Barry’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of an apartment. The court held that officers had probable cause to believe Barry, who was subject to warrantless search conditions, resided at the apartment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether officers had probable cause to believe that Barry resided at the apartment searched under his warrantless probation or post-release supervision search condition.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Barry an evidentiary hearing on his suppression motion.
Holdings
- Under the parolee-search-condition exception as applied under California law, officers must have probable cause to believe that the parolee or probationer resides at the residence to be searched. Probable cause exists when an officer of reasonable caution would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the person lives there. The officers had probable cause here because Barry's responses and reactions, the corroborated tip, his presence at the apartment, and his possession of a key established a fair probability that he resided there.
- A suppression evidentiary hearing is necessary only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a hearing because Barry did not contest the material facts of his interactions with the officer and did not show that the alleged ambiguity about how the officer learned his name was relevant to probable cause.
Key quotations
“Grandberry acknowledged that “the ultimate question whether probable cause exists is ‘fact-intensive,’” and it cannot be reduced to “cross-checking a list of factors.”” (at 1109)
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, the facts available to Officer Espinoza established probable cause to believe that Barry resided at the Emelita apartment.” (at 1111)
“Thus, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.” (at 1112)
Factual background
An anonymous tip identified a person named Ryan who sold drugs from an apartment and drove a red convertible Ford Mustang. Officers determined that Ryan was Ryan Barry, a probationer subject to a warrantless search condition, observed him at the apartment and in a matching Mustang, and found drugs in his possession and vehicle. When told officers would search his Emelita Avenue apartment, Barry did not deny living there, identified his girlfriend as a resident, discussed the apartment's occupants and conditions, and produced a key to the apartment. The apartment search revealed firearms, ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia.
Procedural history
The Central District of California denied Barry's motion to suppress evidence from his car and apartment and denied his request for an evidentiary hearing. Barry entered a conditional plea agreement and was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.