In United States v. Guerrero, --- F.4th ---, No. 21-10248 (9th Cir. 2022), a per curiam opinion, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Sergio Guerrero’s motion to suppress.
There are two concurrences and a dissent, so this seems to be a mostly result only opinion.
"We affirm the denial of Guerrero’s motion to suppress because of the consistent conclusions of Judge Gould and Judge Bea, representing a majority of the panel, that we should affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. Affirmance is required by the conclusions of the judges in the majority, even though the reasoning of Judge Gould and Judge Bea in their separate concurrences filed herewith is different."
As for the dissent, Judge Thomas persuasively argues: "Trooper Amick’s stop ripened into an arrest when he held Guerrero handcuffed, on a roadside, for approximately 40 minutes, waiting for federal officers to arrive. Trooper Amick had no probable cause to do so. Thus, I agree with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, and would reverse the district court’s denial of the suppression motion."
