United States of America v. Rodney Mead Pelling

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY MEAD PELLING,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30280
D.C. No. 6:09-cr-60061-AA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Rodney Pelling was arrested after police found erotica in a motel room he
shared with his twelve-year-old daughter, and naked pictures of her on his digital
camera. Pelling argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress. We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress.
FILED
DEC 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
United States v. Bautista, 362 F.3d 584, 589 (9th Cir. 2004). Factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.
2003). The record amply supports the district court’s determination that Pelling
consented to talk with the deputies, to their search, and then to accompany them to
the Sheriff’s Office. The district court also concluded that even if the deputies’
initial encounter with Pelling was non-consensual, it was supported by a
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. See Adams v. Williams, 407
U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (articulating the now well-established reasonable suspicion
exception to the warrant requirement). We affirm the district court’s denial of
Pelling’s motion to suppress.
Pelling also argues that the district court should have admitted his proposed
expert testimony regarding a claimed impulse control disorder. We review for
abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony.
United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022, 1032 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004). The district
court has broad discretion to assess the relevance and admissibility of expert
testimony. United States v. Finley, 301 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2002). To
resolve this issue, we need not decide whether the crimes with which Pelling was
charged are general or a specific intent crimes. Either way, the district court’s

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
exclusion of the expert evidence as irrelevant and inadmissible was not an abuse of
discretion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --