green
Positive treatment
Trending · 66 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 3×
45.5 score
“while a search warrant must describe items to be seized with particularity sufficient to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings, it need only be reason- ably specific, rather than elaborately detailed.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Perez-Lopez
See United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir.2004) (finding a sufficient nexus where firearms were “strategically located within easy reach in a room containing a substantial quantity of drugs and drug trafficking paraphernalia.”); but see United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir.2004) (finding the evidence insufficient to convict under § 924(c)(1)(A) where the firearms were kept in a locked safe in a truck separated from the drug manufacture site).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Somkhit Thongsy
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
we recognize that persons . . . engaged in criminal activities . . . will fre- quently carry weapons to protect their enterprise.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Thongsy
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
we recognize that persons ... engaged in criminal activities ... will frequently carry 1043 weapons to protect their enterprise.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Adjani
while a search warrant must describe items to be seized with particularity sufficient to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings, it need only be reason- ably specific, rather than elaborately detailed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jacome
While a search warrant needs to particularly describe the place to be searched, it “need only be reasonably specific, rather than elaborately detailed.” United States v. Mann, 389 F. 3d 869, 877 (9th Cir. 2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Walker
Russell v. Harms, 397 F.3d 458, 464 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hill, 19 F.3d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Groce
Russell v. Harms, 397 F.3d 458, 464 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hill, 19 F.3d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington, V. Michael Wayne Pickering
App. 87, 91 , 147 P.3d 649 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 955 (2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Manriquez v. Joel Ensley
In determining whether this particularity requirement has been met, courts should analyze “(1) whether the warrant describes the place to be searched with ‘sufficient particularity to enable law enforcement officers to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort,’ and (2) whether any reasonable probability exists that the officers may mistakenly search another premise.” United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 992 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir. 2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. United States
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 872 (9th Cir. 2004) and United States v. Summer, No. 8:20CR22, 2021 U.S. Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington, V. Arthur S. Durone
App. at 91 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Simha Furaha
In United States v. Rios, 449 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2006), we held: To prove that [the defendant] possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A), the government must show that (1) [the defendant] participated in the conspiracy to traffic in prescription drugs; 2) [he] possessed the firearm; and (3) [his] possession of the firearm was “in furtherance” of the drug trafficking conspiracy. (citing United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also United States v. Hector, 474 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Myers v. Brooks
(2×)
Seizure of Plaintiff’s Property 4 A. Fourth Amendment Analysis 5 The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth 6 Amendment, prevents “general, exploratory searches and indiscriminate rummaging 7 through a person’s belongings.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant 9 that describes with particularity the place to be searched and the person or things to be 10 seized.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington v. Eric Shawn Thomas
App. at 91-92 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington v. Marc Mckee
We consider"'whether the government was able to describe the items more particularly in light of the information available to it at the time the warrant was issued.'" United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting Spilotro, 800 F.2d at 963 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jack Sexton
There was therefore no “reasonable probability ... that the officers [would] mistakenly search another premise.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir.2004). b.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Johnson
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Turner, 770 F.2d 1508, 1510 (9th Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC. v. Silva
The Fourth Amendment prevents “general, exploratory searches and indiscriminate rummaging through a person’s belongings.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 1719 , 161 L.Ed.2d 537 (2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. McGinnis
The Ninth Circuit has "expressly condemned the notion that loaded or unregistered firearms are particularly indicative of drug trafficking [crimes]" and holds instead that "sufficient evidence supports a conviction under § 924(c) when facts in evidence reveal a nexus between the gun[] discovered and the underlying offense.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cameron Griffin
The warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity because it “enable[d] law enforcement officers to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort” without “any reasonable probability ... that the officers [might have] mistakenly searched] another premise[s].” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 1719 , 161 L.Ed.2d 537 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bertha Calvillo-Nieves
A warrant that contains the wrong address for the premises to be searched nonetheless satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement when “ ‘no nearby house met the warrant’s detailed description; the address in the warrant was reasonable for the location intended; the house had been under surveillance before the warrant was sought; the warrant was executed by an officer who had participated in applying for the warrant and who personally knew which premises were intended to be searched; and the premises that were intended to be searched were those actually searched.’” U…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nobari
Nevertheless, while we have acknowledged that there are relevant distinctions between these two clauses, see, e.g., United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879-80 (9th Cir.2004), we also have described the “during and in relation to” and “in furtherance of’ clauses of § 924(c) as “difficult to distinguish conceptually,” in part because similar proof is required for each, United States v. Arreola, 467 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Nobari
UNITED STATES v. NOBARI 9675 [11] Nevertheless, while we have acknowledged that there are relevant distinctions between these two clauses, see, e.g., United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2004), we also have described the “during and in relation to” and “in furtherance of” clauses of § 924(c) as “difficult to distinguish conceptually,” in part because similar proof is required for each, United States v. Arreola, 467 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brobst
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
We have held that “[t]he test for determining the validity of a warrant is [ (1) ] whether the warrant describes the place to be searched with ‘sufficient particularity to enable law enforcement officers to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort,’ and [ (2) ] whether any reasonable probability exists that the officers may mistakenly search another premise.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brobst
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
We have held that “[t]he test for determining the validity of a warrant is [(1)] whether the warrant describes the place to be searched with ‘sufficient particularity to enable law enforcement officers to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort,’ and [(2)] whether any reasonable probability exists that the offi- cers may mistakenly search another premise.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Orantez
Reviewing de novo, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 874, 878 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm the first conviction, reverse the second conviction, and remand for resentencing. 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Orellana
This case is unlike United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir.2004), where “[t]he only evidence adduced at trial showed that the guns were not at hand ... but locked in a safe in a truck,” and the key was kept elsewhere, making the guns not easily accessible.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kemfort
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 872 (9th Cir.2004); see also United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir.2000) (approving a warrant that authorized seizure of “evidence of possession, manufacture, and delivery of the controlled substance methamphetamine,” which “may include, but is not limited to” certain enumerated items).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Higgins
“Because the person whose home is searched has the right to know what items may be seized, an overbroad warrant is invalid whether or not the executing officer abused his discretion.” Riley, 121 Wn.2d at 29 (citing In re Application of Lafayette Acad., Inc., 610 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1979)). ¶11 Three factors are relevant to determine whether a warrant is overbroad: “(1) whether probable cause exists to seize all items of a particular type described in the warrant, (2) whether the warrant sets out objective standards by which executing officers can differentiate items subject to seizure f…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hansen v. Schubert
Specifically, plaintiffs contend that officers unreasonably searched in several locations which could not plausibly hold evidence related to the crime of tax evasion, such as a crematory urn, a medicine cabinet, the freezer, under mattresses, in drawers, the mail, and photo albums. 14 It is well-established that the Fourth Amendment prevents “general, exploratory searches and indiscriminate rummaging through a person’s belongings.” United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Villalba
See id. at 1001 (excusing provision of warrant if exigent circumstances are present); United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 875 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 955 , 125 S.Ct. 1719 , 161 L.Ed.2d 537 (2005) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David L. Smith, United States of America v. Herbert A. Bates
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 874 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1719 , 161 L.Ed.2d 537 (2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Smith
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 874 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1719 (2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Powell
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 874 (9th Cir.2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robinson
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir.2004)(quoting United States v. Turner, 770 F.2d 1508, 1510 (9th Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean
(2×)
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2004) (warrant was sufficiently particular, in part, because “officers had no additional information available that would have allowed them to describe the items more particularly at the time the warrant was issued”).
cited
Cited "see"
State of Iowa v. Lee Allen Breuer
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869 , 875 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004) (stating “dicta in ...
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Rodrigo Nieves-Cortez
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876-77 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Robinson
(2×)
In the context of a search of a place, the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularity and our state statutory particularity requirement in section 1525 27 are met “if the description is such that the officer . . . can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.” (Steele v. United States No. 1 (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503 [ 69 L.Ed. 757 , 45 S.Ct. 414 ]; see People v Coulon (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 148, 152 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 95 ].) While a search warrant must describe items to be seized with particularity sufficient to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s …
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Charles J. Mosley, Jr.
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir.2004).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Mosley
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2004).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Julio Cesar Ruiz, United States of America v. Angel Eliazar Noriega-Valenzuela
(3×)
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 874 (9th Cir.2004).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Ruiz
(3×)
See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 874 (9th Cir. 2004).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Gilbert L. Rios, Jr., A/K/A Seal C, A/K/A Gilbert Lopez, Jr.
(5×)
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the central inquiry is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir.2004).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Rios
(5×)
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the central inquiry is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 6104 UNITED STATES v. RIOS 307, 319 (1979); see United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2004). [1] In relevant part, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A) provides: [A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm, or who, in…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William Mahan
Compare id. at 968 (holding that high-caliber firearms located within easy reach in a room containing drugs were possessed “in furtherance of” a drug offense), with United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that guns located within a locked safe in the defen- UNITED STATES v. MAHAN 15265 dant’s truck were not possessed “in furtherance of” trafficking drugs located within a tent). [5] From these cases, Mahan attempts to glean the principle that a gun must be within close physical proximity to a drug trafficker or his drugs in order to be possessed “in furt…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mahan
Compare id. at 968 (holding that high-caliber firearms located within easy reach in a room containing drugs were possessed “in furtherance of’ a drug offense), with United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 872-73 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that guns located within a locked safe in the defendant’s truck were not possessed “in furtherance of’ trafficking drugs located within a tent).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Carlos Javier Lopez
Id. at 1014 (discovery of sawed-off shotgun at defendant’s residence where no drugs were found at residence did not establish that defendant possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime despite expert testimony that drug traffickers often use firearms to further their drug crimes); see also United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir.2004) (defendant's possession of a firearm at a drug trafficking crime scene insufficient to convict where firearm was in a locked safe inside of a parked truck). 20 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lopez
Thus, the second prong is not at issue. 18 Rios, 449 F.3d at 1012 . 19 Id. at 1014 (discovery of sawed-off shotgun at defendant’s residence where no drugs were found at residence did not establish that defendant possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime despite expert testi- mony that drug traffickers often use firearms to further their drug crimes); see also United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2004) (defen- dant’s possession of a firearm at a drug trafficking crime scene insufficient to convict where firearm was in a locked safe inside of a parked truck). 20 Rios, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Christopher Lee Adjani Jana Reinhold
The Adjani warrant “describe[d] in great[ ] detail the items one commonly expects to find on premises used for the criminal activities in question.... ” Spilotro, 800 F.2d at 964 ; see also United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 877 (9th Cir.2004) (“While a search warrant must describe items to be seized with particularity sufficient to prevent a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings, it need only be reasonably specific, rather than elaborately detailed.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
DAVID DIAZ
v.
DARYL GATES WILLIE L. WILLIAMS RICHARD ALARCON RICHARD ALATORRE HAL BERNSON MARVIN BRAUDE LAURA CHICK JOHN FERRARO MICHAEL FEUER RUTH GALANTER NATE HOLDEN, AND BERNARD C. PARKS, CHIEF OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, —
v.
DARYL GATES WILLIE L. WILLIAMS RICHARD ALARCON RICHARD ALATORRE HAL BERNSON MARVIN BRAUDE LAURA CHICK JOHN FERRARO MICHAEL FEUER RUTH GALANTER NATE HOLDEN, AND BERNARD C. PARKS, CHIEF OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, —
02-56818.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 18, 2004.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
David DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Daryl GATES; Willie L. Williams; Richard Alarcon; Richard Alatorre; Hal Bernson; Marvin Braude; Laura Chick; John Ferraro; Michael Feuer; Ruth Galanter; Nate Holden, et al., Defendants, and
Bernard C. PARKS, Chief of Los Angeles Police Department, Defendant — Appellee.
No. 02-56818.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 18, 2004.
Stephen Yagman, Yagman & Yagman, Venice, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Janet G. Bogigian, Amy Jo Field, Deputy City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER. Chief Judge.
ORDER
SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,[1] it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
Notes:
1
Judges O'Scannlain and Fisher are recused