United States of America v. Christian Venegas

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTIAN VENEGAS,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
$33,020.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY;
$3,520.00 IN U.S.,
Defendants.
No. 10-56401
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01706-BEN-
BGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 17, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Christian Venegas (“Venegas”) appeals on Fourth Amendment grounds the
denial of his Amended Motion to Suppress and resulting Consent Judgment of
Forfeiture of all of the defendant currency, seized by the San Diego County Sheriff’s
office during a traffic stop. Reviewing the district court’s denial of the Amended
Motion to Suppress de novo, we affirm. See United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882,
886 (9th Cir. 2008).
In the context of investigative traffic stops, the Fourth Amendment requires
only that an officer have reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation has
occurred, formed upon “‘specific, articulable facts . . . together with objective and
reasonable inferences.’” United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir.
2000) (internal citations omitted). The arresting officer predicated the traffic stop on
suspicion that while proceeding through an intersection, Venegas had violated
California Vehicle Code § 22107 requiring a motorist to signal before turning.
Objective facts, known to the officer at the time of Venegas’s stop were sufficient to
constitute an objective basis for reasonable suspicion that Venegas had failed to signal
before turning. As such, the stop did not violate Venegas’s Fourth Amendment rights,
and the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and resulting Consent
Judgment are AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --