# United States v. Barona

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 5, 1995 · 56 F.3d 1087

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935031

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Maria Cecilia BARONA, Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Janet MARTINEZ, aka: Luz Janet Martinez & Luz Janeth Martinez, Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Brian BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Mario ERNESTO Villabona-Alvarado, a/k/a Tico, Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Michael Dubarry McCARVER, a/k/a Mike Bald, Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES of America v. Michael HARRIS, a/k/a Tall Make
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 5, 1995
- **Citations:** 56 F.3d 1087; 1995 WL 329267
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tanner
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Tanner, Wallace
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935031

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Fourth Amendment protection 18612 UNITED STATES v. ZAKHAROV does not apply to an alien until he “has assumed the complete range of obligations that we impose on the citizenry” (quota- tion and citation omitted)
- finding error in failing to instruct that certain individuals who were on list of potential supervisees given to jury were incapable, as a legal matter, of counting as supervisees
- explaining that “with regard to foreign searches involving aliens with ‘no voluntary connection’ to the United States, [ ] the Fourth Amendment is simply inapplicable”
- holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary doctrine applies when United States authorities reasonably rely on representations concerning foreign law
- finding that the United States requesting that Italian police put a “watch” on two suspects did not create a joint venture

## Opinion text

TANNER, District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion filed today. I write separately, however, to explicitly reject Judge Reinhardt’s inference that the makeup of the panel affected the outcome of this case in any way other than in the normal course of the decision-making process that goes into every case heard before this court. Dissent at 1105 (“panel composition, not persuasive legal analysis, has determined the result in this case”). Nothing could be further from the truth.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935031. Public record. Not legal advice.