UNITED STATES v. BRUNO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-15No. No. 19-10395

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion, ruling that Bruno's new theory of insufficient probable cause was waived because he failed to present it in his pretrial motion or provide good cause for the change in argument.

Micah Bruno was convicted of uttering counterfeit obligations or securities and appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Bruno shifted his legal theory, arguing that the facts in the search warrant application were insufficient to establish probable cause. However, he had previously challenged only the accuracy and completeness of the government's factual representations in that application at the trial court level. Because Bruno changed his suppression argument without explaining why he could not have raised the new theory earlier, the appellate court found the argument waived under established precedent.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a defendant waives a suppression argument by raising a new legal theory on appeal without good cause
Whether facts in a search warrant application established probable cause
Preservation of arguments in pretrial motions

Procedural posture

Bruno appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his apartment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Micah Bruno appeals from his criminal conviction for uttering counterfeit obligations or securities. He challenges the district courts denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Normally, we review the denial of a suppression motion de novo and the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dixon, 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020). But where “the defendant attempts to raise new theories on appeal in support of a motion to suppress,” he must show “good cause for failing to present in his pre-trial motion the new theory for suppression he raises in [the] appeal.” United States v. Guerrero, 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1300, 206 L.Ed.2d 378 (2020); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).

Here, like the Guerrero defendant, Bruno changed his argument on appeal. In the district court, he disputed the governments factual representations supporting the search of his apartment. On appeal, he no longer argues that the search warrant application contained factual inaccuracies or material omissions. Rather, he argues that the facts were insufficient to establish probable cause. Because Bruno fails to explain why he has good cause for not raising this argument earlier, we deem it waived. See Guerrero, 921 F.3d at 898.

AFFIRMED.