United States of America v. Cesar Antonio Becerra

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CESAR ANTONIO BECERRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30050
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00227-MO-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2019
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,** District
Judge.
Cesar Antonio Becerra moved to suppress evidence seized during the
February 25, 2014 arrest, on the theory that the police lacked probable cause. The
district court denied that motion. Becerra was eventually found guilty of all the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
FILED
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
charges related to the February 2014 arrest. He now appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the district court’s denial of the
motion to suppress.
“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably
trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe
that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested.”
United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007). Here the police
watched the informant set up a drug transaction with Becerra via text message.
Moreover, that informant, who was known to the police and who had provided
reliable information in the past, told the police that he previously had purchased
heroin from Becerra at the location where Becerra planned to meet the informant.
Becerra was then followed to that very location. “Because the [informant]
correctly predicted the suspect’s movement, a police officer could reasonably
conclude that there was some degree of reliability to the [informant’s] claim that
the suspect was engaged in criminal activity.” Foster v. City of Indio, 908 F.3d
1204, 1214 (9th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). A reasonable person with the information
in the Portland police’s possession would believe that Becerra was in the process
of committing a crime, namely the possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
Becerra also argues that at trial the district court erred by failing to instruct
the jurors orally as to the law they were required to apply during deliberations. In

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a concurrently filed opinion, we reverse and remand for a new trial because of that
error.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --