United States of America v. Alonzo Dean Jenkins

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALONZO DEAN JENKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30237
D.C. No.
3:17-cr-00108-TMB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 5, 2019**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: TALLMAN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Alonzo Jenkins appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress a firearm found in the vehicle he had been driving. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 8 2019
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 --

We affirm without reaching the thrust of Jenkins’ appeal,1 because Jenkins
concedes on appeal that stopping his vehicle comported with the Fourth
Amendment and that Sgt. Witte could order him to step out of his vehicle during
the traffic stop. Sgt. Evans discovered the weapon in plain view under the driver’s
seat as he looked into the car after Jenkins exited the vehicle. Accordingly, the
weapon was admissible under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
See United States v. Hall, 974 F.2d 1201, 1204 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
1Jenkins argues that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment, because
they conducted a Terry frisk absent reasonable suspicion that Jenkins was armed
and dangerous. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 331 (2009).
2

-- 2 of 2 --