FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50328 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:18 cr 0412-CAS FRANZ GREY, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 12, 2019 Pasadena, California Filed May 27, 2020 Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and M. Douglas Harpool,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Tashima; Dissent by Judge Bybee * The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. GREY SUMMARY** Criminal Law Affirming the district court’s order granting a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies, the panel held that where, as here, law enforcement officers are asked to assist in the execution of an administrative warrant authorizing the inspection of a private residence, they violate the Fourth Amendment when their “primary purpose” in executing the warrant is to gather evidence in support of a criminal investigation rather than to assist the inspectors. Dissenting, Judge Bybee wrote that, given that there was a California Superior Court inspection warrant authorizing sheriff’s deputies to accompany the housing inspectors, the deputies would have entered the defendant’s house regardless of their subjective motivations, so the correct inquiry is whether, once inside the home, the deputies’ actions exceeded the permissible scope of a protective sweep. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. GREY 3 COUNSEL Hampton Hunter Bruton (argued), Attorney; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Nicola T. Hanna, United States Attorney; L. Ashley Aull, Chief, Criminal Appeals Section; United States Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sonam Henderson (argued), Deputy Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee. OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Following Alexander v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539 (2017), we hold that where, as here, law enforcement officers are asked to assist in the execution of an administrative warrant authorizing the inspection of a private residence, they violate the Fourth Amendment when their “primary purpose” in executing the warrant is to gather evidence in support of a criminal investigation rather than to assist the inspectors. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting defendant Franz Grey’s motion to suppress. 4 UNITED STATES V. GREY I. FACTS1 A. City of Lancaster’s Code Enforcement Efforts In October 2017, the City of Lancaster, California, Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, began investigating defendant Grey for possible violations of the City of Lancaster Municipal Code. The investigation primarily focused on complaints from neighbors that Grey’s property was “surrounded by tarps,” that there was “a camera ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals