United States of America v. Ronald Orville Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RONALD ORVILLE GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50575
D.C. No.
5:05-cr-00060-VAP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Ronald Garcia asks the Court to reverse his conviction because
the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana production
obtained pursuant to a warranted search. As the facts are known to the parties, we
FILED
AUG 11 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Garcia argues that the warrant supporting the seizure of drug evidence was
invalid because it relied on information obtained when police intruded on his
curtilage in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, Garcia has failed to
establish that a dilapidated and nonfunctional single-wide trailer, used to dry and to
cultivate marijuana, “harbor[ed] those intimate activities associated with domestic
life.” United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 n.4 (1987). Moreover, even
assuming the trailer was a home, the officers did not trespass on its curtilage since
they saw marijuana in plain view in an area not “intimately linked to the home.”
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1415 (2013) (quoting California v. Ciraolo,
476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986)); see also Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301. Finally, even
assuming a Fourth Amendment violation, the warrant nonetheless was supported
by probable cause, after excising the challenged information. See United States v.
Barajas-Avalos, 377 F.3d 1040, 1054 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because the district court’s suppression ruling was correct, Garcia’s
conviction is
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --