UNITED STATES v. WILSON (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Chad Stephen Wilson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His appeal challenges only the district court's order denying his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's ruling de novo, but we review the court's underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Zapien, 861 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

1. The warrantless search of Wilson's drawstring backpack complied with the Fourth Amendment as a reasonable protective search under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). At the time of the search, there was reasonable suspicion to believe that Wilson (or Smith, another recent occupant of the vehicle that was searched) was “dangerous and [could have] gain[ed] immediate control of weapons.” Id. at 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469.

2. The warrantless search of Wilson's drawstring backpack also complied with the Fourth Amendment as a reasonable search incident to arrest under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). Wilson was “unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” Id. at 343, 129 S.Ct. 1710. Under such circumstances, the officers could conduct a warrantless search of the backpack in the passenger compartment without violating the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 345, 129 S.Ct. 1710. The fact that the search occurred prior to Wilson's arrest did not make it unreasonable. At the time of the search, the officers possessed probable cause to believe Wilson had unlawfully possessed a restricted weapon, and the search was “roughly contemporaneous” with the arrest. United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 951–52 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.