The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Tarazon, 989 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1993):
Tarazon argues that all evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless entry, arrest and search should have been suppressed because: (1) there was no probable cause to arrest him or search the establishment; (2) there were no exigent circumstances sufficient to support a warrantless arrest or search; and (3) the scope of the search exceeded its constitutional justification. We review the district court's determination of the legality of an arrest or search de novo. See United States v. Lai, 944 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 947, 117 L.Ed.2d 116 (1992). We review the district court's underlying factual findings for clear error. Id.
1. Probable Cause
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.