United States of America v. Felix Garcia-Godoy

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIX GARCIA-GODOY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50204
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01110-SJO-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
Felix Garcia-Godoy appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence found during an inventory search of his vehicle.
FILED
FEB 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Contrary to Garcia-Godoy’s assertion, the inventory search in this case was
not “for the sole purpose of investigation.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372
(1987); United States v. Bowhay, 992 F.2d 229, 231 (9th Cir. 1993).
Nor was the district court’s finding that the searching officers followed
“standardized procedures” clearly erroneous. See United States v. Ruckes, 586
F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Mancera-Londono, 912
F.2d 373, 375 (9th Cir. 1990). It is of no moment that the search was never
completed. United States v. Scott, 665 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1981).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --