Opinion
Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California February 17, 2012
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:06-cv-05014-PJW. Patrick J. Walsh, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Steven Reuben Welk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Los Angeles, CA.
For MARIA FERRO, Claimant - Appellant: Lisa Jane Jackson, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Lisa J. Jackson, Pacific Palisades, CA; Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Attorney, Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Santa Ana, CA.
For ROBERT FERRO, Claimant: Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Attorney, Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Santa Ana, CA.
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In this memorandum disposition, we address Maria Ferro's contention that the search that revealed the firearms at issue was unconstitutional. We affirm the district court's denial of her motion to suppress. In a concurrently filed published opinion, we address her other claims.
Ferro moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the warrant affidavit contained deliberately false statements which rendered it invalid under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). On appeal, Ferro contends that five specific statements in the Radovic affidavit were false and that, without these statements, the police lacked probable cause for a search. Her argument fails for a simple reason: even excluding all of the statements to which she objects, the affidavit still contained more than enough probable cause to obtain a warrant. It is clear to us that, as the district court said, " any judge would issue a search warrant in this case to go into Robert Ferro's house and see if the same guy who is setting up a hideaway place for [Frank] Beltran is also holding the gun and the clothes that he used during the crime."
In his criminal proceeding for being an felon-in-possession, Robert Ferro also moved to suppress the same evidence, and the motion was denied by a different judge than the one presiding in this case.
The denial of the motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.