United States of America v. Maurillo Trejo

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MAURILLO TREJO,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-30354
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-06003-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The government appeals from the district court’s order granting defendant
Maurillo Trejo’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a vehicle search
incident to his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and we vacate
the order and remand for reconsideration.
FILED
DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-30354 2
The government concedes that the search of Trejo’s vehicle after he was
handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car was unconstitutional under
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), but contends that it was permissible under
the good-faith exception for searches conducted in reliance on binding precedent.
The Supreme Court recently held that “searches conducted in objectively
reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the
exclusionary rule.” Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2428-29 (2011). The
search of Trejo’s vehicle occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant,
and was conducted in compliance with New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460
(1981), which was binding appellate precedent at the time of the search.
Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to reconsider its order in
light of Davis.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --