U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rulings
The Ninth Circuit is the federal appeals court for Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Its rulings bind federal courts in those states, and other courts often consider them. Plain-English summaries from Criminal Defense Resources™; general education, not legal advice.
6 rulings, newest first.
United States v. Cano
The Ninth Circuit held that at the border, officers may do a manual search of a cell phone without suspicion, but a forensic (device-copying) search requires reasonable suspicion. It also held that border phone searches are limited to looking for digital contraband.
Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa
The full Ninth Circuit held that Arizona's Proposition 100 laws, which denied bail to all undocumented immigrants charged with a wide range of felonies, violated due process because they were not narrowly tailored and did not provide individualized decisions.
United States v. Olsen
The Ninth Circuit found that the government did not disclose information about problems with a state crime lab forensic scientist who worked on the case. But the court held the information was not "material" given the other evidence, so the conviction was affirmed.
Doody v. Ryan
The full Ninth Circuit held that a 17-year-old's confession, given after a lengthy overnight interrogation in an Arizona murder investigation, was obtained in violation of Miranda because the warnings were confusing and played down, and that the confession was involuntary. Federal habeas relief was granted.
United States v. Craighead
The Ninth Circuit held that questioning in a person's own home can be "custodial" for Miranda purposes when the setting is police-dominated. Courts look at factors such as how many officers were there, whether they were armed, whether the person was restrained or isolated, and whether he was told he was free to leave.
United States v. Erskine
The Ninth Circuit held that a defendant's decision to give up his lawyer and represent himself was not knowing and intelligent, because the record showed he had not been correctly informed of the maximum penalty he faced. The conviction was reversed.