United States of America v. CRAIG ALLEN OGANS, AKA Byron Stuart Baker

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAIG ALLEN OGANS, AKA Byron
Stuart Baker,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10237
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00939-RS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 14, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges and DUFFY,** District Judge.
Appellant Craig Ogans appeals his conviction and sentence for bank fraud
(18 U.S.C. § 1344) and identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A). The district court
denied Ogans’ motion to suppress evidence of thirteen bank cards, recovered
FILED
MAY 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

during the search of a residence, that formed the evidentiary basis for those counts.
Because we conclude that Ogans’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we
affirm.
The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Officer Pierucci had
lawful access to the cards. Pierucci could search the envelope and read the cards
pursuant to the terms of the warrant, which permitted the seizure of cards in the
names of Ogans or Joseph Williams. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-
21 (1982). Because the incriminating nature of the cards was immediately
apparent to Pierucci, the plain view doctrine justified their seizure. See Minnesota
v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993).
The fact that Officer DeJesus viewed the cards prior to Pierucci did not
render the search unlawful. See United States v. Ewain, 88 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir.
1996) (holding that “another pair of eyes” does not add to the loss of privacy of a
person whose things have been examined pursuant to a warrant). DeJesus’ request
that his supervisor also examine the cards as part of the search did not violate the
Fourth Amendment because Ogans’ privacy interests had already been lawfully
compromised by DeJesus’ viewing of the cards. See id.
The case primarily relied upon by Ogans, United States v. Wright, 667 F.2d
793 (9th Cir. 1982), is distinguishable because the officers there exceeded the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

scope of the warrant by perusing the contents of a ledger beyond what was justified
by the warrant’s authorization of a search for a license. 667 F.2d at 795-99.
Additionally, Wright and United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1983)
were issued prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Horton v. California, 496
U.S. 128 (1990). Ewain, published after Horton, establishes that Ogans’ argument
that multiple officers may not view the same objects while executing a search
warrant is untenable in light of Horton’s rationale. 88 F.3d at 695. Ogans’ Fourth
Amendment rights were not violated by the search and seizure of the cards.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --