United States v. Hendricks

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-2240 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00175-TOR-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW DYLAN HENDRICKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2024** Seattle, Washington Before: CHRISTEN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.*** Matthew Dylan Hendricks appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to * 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). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. suppress evidence.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, and we review for clear error its factual findings. United States v. Ramirez, 976 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm. The district court correctly determined that the government’s warrantless search of Hendricks’ clutch was a valid search incident to arrest.2 “[A] search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973). Under this exception, when conducting a lawful arrest, officers may search the arrestee’s person, including personal property that could be characterized as “an element of [arrestee’s] clothing[.]” United States v. Passaro, 624 F.2d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[T]he wallet found in the pocket of [arrestee] was an element of his clothing, his person, which is, for a reasonable time following a legal arrest, taken out of the realm of protection from police interest.”). Because Hendricks’ clutch was attached to his clothing with a carabiner and was concealed underneath his zipped jacket, it was associated with his person. See id. Further, because Hendricks’ clutch was attached to and concealed under his 1 Hendricks’ plea agreement preserves his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. See, e.g., United States v. Estrella, 69 F.4th 958, 964 (9th Cir. 2023). 2 Hendricks does not dispute the lawfulness of his arrest. 2 clothing, it was on his person, not merely within his immediate control. See United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981) (discussing distinction between wallet in arrestee’s pocket and purse held in arrestee’s hand or on their lap).3 Finally, because the officer detached the clutch from Hendricks’ clothing and searched it only a few seconds later, while another officer continued patting Hendricks down, no intervening circumstances removed the clutch from the scope of the lawful search incident to arrest. See Robinson, 414 U.S. at 223 (upholding search of cigarette pack where officer “reached into [arrestee’s] pocket and pulled out the object,” “opened the cigarette pack,” and “continued his search of [arrestee] to completion”). Hendricks also argues that the search was unlawful because his clutch was zipped shut. We disagree. During a search incident to arrest, officers may open containers found on the arrestee’s person because arrestees have reduced privacy interests in such items. Id. at 236 (“Having in the course of a lawful search come upon the crumpled package of cigarettes, [the officer] was entitled to inspect it.”). Hendricks does not identify any authority establishing that police cannot open a 3 Hendricks relies primarily on United States v. Knapp, 917 F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2019). Knapp is an out-of-circuit case that is not binding precedent. Moreover, Knapp distinguished between searches of “the arrestee’s immediate person, worn clothing, or containers concealed under or within [his] clothing,” which are included in searches of the person, from “visible containers in an arrestee’s hand[.]” 917 F.3d at 1167 (emphasis added). Here, it is undisputed that Hendricks’ clutch was concealed underneath his jacket. 3 zipped container under such circumstances. AFFIRMED. 4