Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin
Headline: Ninth Circuit Denies Injunction Against DEA Asset Seizures
Citation: 128 F.4th 1133
Brief at a Glance
Company's bid to block DEA asset seizure fails as court finds its delta-9-THC products likely illegal controlled substances.
- Ensure products containing delta-9-THC strictly adhere to the 0.3% dry weight limit established by the 2018 Farm Bill to be considered legal hemp derivatives.
- Maintain thorough documentation, including lab reports (Certificates of Analysis), proving compliance with federal THC limits.
- Understand that law enforcement can seize assets based on probable cause if they suspect a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
Case Summary
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin, decided by Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute (AIMSI) to prevent the DEA from seizing its assets. AIMSI argued that the DEA's actions violated its due process rights and that its products were not illegal controlled substances. The court found that AIMSI failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly regarding the classification of its products and the DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause. The court held: The court held that AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process claim because the DEA's seizure of assets based on probable cause of illegal activity does not violate due process at the preliminary injunction stage.. The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate a substantial question as to whether its products were illegal controlled substances, as the DEA presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for their seizure.. The court held that AIMSI failed to show that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor, as the potential harm to the public from allowing the distribution of potentially illegal substances outweighed AIMSI's financial losses.. The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate that the public interest favored granting the injunction, as the public interest lies in preventing the distribution of illegal drugs and upholding the law.. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that AIMSI did not meet the required legal standard for such relief.. This decision reinforces the DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause of violations of the Controlled Substances Act, even when the claimant argues due process violations. It highlights the high burden plaintiffs face in obtaining preliminary injunctions to halt such seizures, emphasizing the public interest in preventing the distribution of potentially illegal substances.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A company called AIMSI wanted a court to stop the DEA from taking its products and money. AIMSI claimed its products weren't illegal drugs and that the DEA violated its rights. The court disagreed, finding AIMSI likely wouldn't win its case because its products contained delta-9-THC, a controlled substance, and the DEA followed proper procedures for seizing assets.
For Legal Practitioners
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. The court found AIMSI's arguments regarding the classification of its delta-9-THC products as non-controlled substances unconvincing under the CSA. Furthermore, the court rejected AIMSI's due process challenge to the DEA's asset seizure based on probable cause in a civil forfeiture context.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the high bar for obtaining a preliminary injunction. AIMSI could not show a likelihood of success because its products contained delta-9-THC, a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, and the DEA's civil forfeiture seizure based on probable cause satisfied due process requirements. The court's analysis emphasizes the importance of properly classifying substances under the CSA.
Newsroom Summary
A federal appeals court ruled against a company, Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute (AIMSI), that sought to block the DEA from seizing its assets. The court found that AIMSI's products, containing delta-9-THC, are likely illegal controlled substances, and the DEA acted within its legal authority.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process claim because the DEA's seizure of assets based on probable cause of illegal activity does not violate due process at the preliminary injunction stage.
- The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate a substantial question as to whether its products were illegal controlled substances, as the DEA presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for their seizure.
- The court held that AIMSI failed to show that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor, as the potential harm to the public from allowing the distribution of potentially illegal substances outweighed AIMSI's financial losses.
- The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate that the public interest favored granting the injunction, as the public interest lies in preventing the distribution of illegal drugs and upholding the law.
- The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that AIMSI did not meet the required legal standard for such relief.
Key Takeaways
- Ensure products containing delta-9-THC strictly adhere to the 0.3% dry weight limit established by the 2018 Farm Bill to be considered legal hemp derivatives.
- Maintain thorough documentation, including lab reports (Certificates of Analysis), proving compliance with federal THC limits.
- Understand that law enforcement can seize assets based on probable cause if they suspect a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
- Be prepared to engage in civil forfeiture proceedings if your assets are seized, and seek legal counsel immediately.
- Recognize that due process rights in asset forfeiture cases are generally satisfied by notice and an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a pre-seizure injunction.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. This standard applies because the district court's decision on whether to grant or deny an injunction is reviewed for whether it was a clear error of judgment.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Ninth Circuit on appeal from the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute (AIMSI). AIMSI sought to prevent the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from seizing its assets.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for a preliminary injunction rests on the moving party, AIMSI. The standard requires AIMSI to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that the injunction is in the public interest.
Legal Tests Applied
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Elements: AIMSI's argument that its products are not illegal controlled substances. · AIMSI's argument that the DEA's seizure of assets violated its due process rights. · The DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause.
The court found AIMSI failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, the court noted that AIMSI did not adequately explain why its products, which contained delta-9-THC, were not illegal controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. The court also found that the DEA's seizure of assets based on probable cause did not violate AIMSI's due process rights, as the seizure was a civil forfeiture proceeding.
Irreparable Harm
Elements: The potential loss of business and reputation. · The disruption of operations due to asset seizure.
While AIMSI argued it would suffer irreparable harm from asset seizure, the court did not reach a definitive conclusion on this element as AIMSI failed on the likelihood of success prong.
Balance of Equities
Elements: The harm to AIMSI if the injunction is denied. · The harm to the government if the injunction is granted.
The court did not extensively analyze the balance of equities because AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Public Interest
Elements: The public interest in enforcing drug laws. · The public interest in protecting due process rights.
The court did not extensively analyze the public interest because AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Statutory References
| 21 U.S.C. § 812 | Schedules of controlled substances — This statute is relevant as it lists substances classified as controlled substances. AIMSI's products contained delta-9-THC, which is listed in Schedule I of this statute, making it a controlled substance unless an exception applies. |
| 21 U.S.C. § 802(16) | Definitions relating to controlled substances — This definition is relevant as it defines 'marihuana' and its derivatives, which is central to the dispute over whether AIMSI's products are illegal. |
| 21 U.S.C. § 813 | Analogues — This statute defines analogue drugs, which could be relevant if AIMSI argued its products were not explicitly listed but were similar to controlled substances. However, the court focused on the direct presence of delta-9-THC. |
| 18 U.S.C. § 983 | General rules for forfeiture proceedings — This statute governs civil forfeiture proceedings, which is the procedural mechanism the DEA used to seize AIMSI's assets. AIMSI's due process challenge was directed at this process. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"AIMSI has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that its products are not illegal controlled substances."
"The DEA's seizure of AIMSI's assets based on probable cause did not violate AIMSI's due process rights."
"AIMSI failed to demonstrate that its products containing delta-9-THC are not illegal controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act."
Remedies
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, meaning the DEA's seizure of assets can proceed pending further litigation or resolution of the forfeiture proceedings.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Ensure products containing delta-9-THC strictly adhere to the 0.3% dry weight limit established by the 2018 Farm Bill to be considered legal hemp derivatives.
- Maintain thorough documentation, including lab reports (Certificates of Analysis), proving compliance with federal THC limits.
- Understand that law enforcement can seize assets based on probable cause if they suspect a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
- Be prepared to engage in civil forfeiture proceedings if your assets are seized, and seek legal counsel immediately.
- Recognize that due process rights in asset forfeiture cases are generally satisfied by notice and an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a pre-seizure injunction.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are a business owner selling products containing hemp-derived delta-9-THC, and the DEA seizes your inventory and bank accounts, claiming they are illegal drugs.
Your Rights: You have the right to challenge the seizure through civil forfeiture proceedings and to seek a preliminary injunction to halt further action while your case is pending. You also have due process rights, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
What To Do: Consult with an attorney specializing in drug law and civil forfeiture immediately. Gather all documentation related to your products' sourcing, testing, and compliance. Prepare to demonstrate why your products are legal and why the DEA's seizure was improper.
Scenario: You believe a government agency has wrongly seized your property based on a misunderstanding of the law regarding a specific product you sell.
Your Rights: You have the right to due process, which includes notice of the seizure and an opportunity to contest it in court. You can argue that the agency lacked probable cause or that the property is not subject to forfeiture.
What To Do: Seek legal counsel experienced in administrative law and forfeiture. File a formal claim for the property and respond to any legal actions initiated by the agency within the specified deadlines.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to sell products containing delta-9-THC?
Depends. Under federal law, delta-9-THC is a Schedule I controlled substance. However, the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp and its derivatives containing less than 0.3% delta-9-THC on a dry weight basis. Products exceeding this threshold are generally illegal controlled substances, unless they fall under a specific exemption or are regulated differently by state law.
This applies to federal law. State laws may vary significantly regarding delta-9-THC and hemp-derived products.
Practical Implications
For Businesses selling hemp-derived products
This ruling reinforces that products containing delta-9-THC above the 0.3% federal limit are subject to seizure by law enforcement, and companies must be prepared to legally defend their product classification and business practices.
For Law enforcement agencies (like the DEA)
The ruling supports the DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause when they have a reasonable belief that a product violates the Controlled Substances Act, particularly concerning delta-9-THC content.
For Consumers of hemp-derived products
Consumers should be aware that the legality of products containing delta-9-THC can be complex and depends on the concentration and source. Products exceeding federal limits are at risk of being deemed illegal and subject to seizure.
Related Legal Concepts
The primary federal law regulating the manufacture, distribution, and possession... Civil Asset Forfeiture
A legal process where law enforcement officers can seize assets believed to be c... Hemp vs. Marijuana
Hemp is defined federally as cannabis with less than 0.3% delta-9-THC, while mar... Due Process Clause
A constitutional guarantee that prohibits governments from depriving any person ...
Frequently Asked Questions (32)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (6)
Q: What is Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin about?
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin is a case decided by Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025.
Q: What court decided Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin?
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin was decided by the Ninth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.
Q: When was Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin decided?
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin was decided on February 13, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin?
The citation for Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin is 128 F.4th 1133. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was the main issue in Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute v. DEA?
The main issue was whether AIMSI was entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop the DEA from seizing its assets, which AIMSI claimed contained legal products and that the seizure violated its due process rights.
Q: Did the court grant the preliminary injunction AIMSI requested?
No, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. AIMSI failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its case.
Legal Analysis (12)
Q: Is Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin published?
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin. Key holdings: The court held that AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process claim because the DEA's seizure of assets based on probable cause of illegal activity does not violate due process at the preliminary injunction stage.; The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate a substantial question as to whether its products were illegal controlled substances, as the DEA presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for their seizure.; The court held that AIMSI failed to show that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor, as the potential harm to the public from allowing the distribution of potentially illegal substances outweighed AIMSI's financial losses.; The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate that the public interest favored granting the injunction, as the public interest lies in preventing the distribution of illegal drugs and upholding the law.; The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that AIMSI did not meet the required legal standard for such relief..
Q: Why is Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin important?
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin has an impact score of 30/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause of violations of the Controlled Substances Act, even when the claimant argues due process violations. It highlights the high burden plaintiffs face in obtaining preliminary injunctions to halt such seizures, emphasizing the public interest in preventing the distribution of potentially illegal substances.
Q: What precedent does Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin set?
Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process claim because the DEA's seizure of assets based on probable cause of illegal activity does not violate due process at the preliminary injunction stage. (2) The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate a substantial question as to whether its products were illegal controlled substances, as the DEA presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for their seizure. (3) The court held that AIMSI failed to show that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor, as the potential harm to the public from allowing the distribution of potentially illegal substances outweighed AIMSI's financial losses. (4) The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate that the public interest favored granting the injunction, as the public interest lies in preventing the distribution of illegal drugs and upholding the law. (5) The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that AIMSI did not meet the required legal standard for such relief.
Q: What are the key holdings in Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin?
1. The court held that AIMSI failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process claim because the DEA's seizure of assets based on probable cause of illegal activity does not violate due process at the preliminary injunction stage. 2. The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate a substantial question as to whether its products were illegal controlled substances, as the DEA presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for their seizure. 3. The court held that AIMSI failed to show that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor, as the potential harm to the public from allowing the distribution of potentially illegal substances outweighed AIMSI's financial losses. 4. The court held that AIMSI did not demonstrate that the public interest favored granting the injunction, as the public interest lies in preventing the distribution of illegal drugs and upholding the law. 5. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that AIMSI did not meet the required legal standard for such relief.
Q: What cases are related to Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin?
Precedent cases cited or related to Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin: Winter v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993).
Q: Why did AIMSI fail to show a likelihood of success?
AIMSI failed because its products contained delta-9-THC, which is a controlled substance under federal law, and the company did not adequately explain why its products were not illegal.
Q: What is delta-9-THC?
Delta-9-THC is the primary psychoactive compound found in cannabis. Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance.
Q: Does the 2018 Farm Bill protect products with delta-9-THC?
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp, defined as cannabis with less than 0.3% delta-9-THC on a dry weight basis. Products exceeding this limit are generally considered illegal controlled substances under federal law.
Q: Can the DEA seize assets if they suspect illegal drugs are involved?
Yes, the DEA can seize assets based on probable cause if they have a reasonable belief that the assets are connected to illegal controlled substances, as part of a civil forfeiture proceeding.
Q: Did the DEA's seizure violate AIMSI's due process rights?
The court found that the DEA's seizure based on probable cause in a civil forfeiture proceeding did not violate AIMSI's due process rights, as AIMSI was afforded procedural safeguards.
Q: What is probable cause in a forfeiture case?
Probable cause means the government has a reasonable belief, supported by facts and circumstances, that the property is subject to forfeiture, such as being derived from or used in illegal drug activity.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin affect me?
This decision reinforces the DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause of violations of the Controlled Substances Act, even when the claimant argues due process violations. It highlights the high burden plaintiffs face in obtaining preliminary injunctions to halt such seizures, emphasizing the public interest in preventing the distribution of potentially illegal substances. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What happens to seized assets if a company loses its case?
If a company ultimately loses its legal challenge to the seizure, the government can permanently forfeit and dispose of the seized assets, which could include money, inventory, or equipment.
Q: What should a business do if its assets are seized by the DEA?
Immediately consult with an attorney experienced in drug law and civil forfeiture. Gather all documentation related to the seized assets and the products involved, and prepare to formally contest the seizure.
Q: How can businesses selling hemp-derived products protect themselves?
Businesses should ensure their products strictly comply with the federal 0.3% delta-9-THC limit, maintain meticulous records, and stay informed about evolving federal and state regulations.
Q: What is the significance of the Ninth Circuit's ruling?
The ruling clarifies that companies selling products containing delta-9-THC must be able to prove their legality under the Controlled Substances Act and that civil forfeiture based on probable cause is a valid enforcement mechanism.
Historical Context (2)
Q: What was the historical context of regulating substances like delta-9-THC?
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 established a framework for classifying drugs based on their potential for abuse and medical utility, with Schedule I being for substances with high abuse potential and no accepted medical use.
Q: How has the definition of 'hemp' evolved legally?
The definition of hemp has been significantly shaped by legislation like the 2018 Farm Bill, which created a federal distinction between hemp (low THC) and marijuana (high THC), impacting the legality of cannabis-derived products.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin?
The docket number for Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin is 22-1568. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin be appealed?
Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.
Q: What is a preliminary injunction?
A preliminary injunction is a court order issued early in a lawsuit to temporarily prevent a party from taking a specific action until the case is fully decided. It's an extraordinary remedy.
Q: What is the standard of review for a preliminary injunction denial?
The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, meaning the decision is reviewed for clear error or if the district court applied the wrong legal standard.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Winter v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993)
Case Details
| Case Name | Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin |
| Citation | 128 F.4th 1133 |
| Court | Ninth Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2025-02-13 |
| Docket Number | 22-1568 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 30 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the DEA's authority to seize assets based on probable cause of violations of the Controlled Substances Act, even when the claimant argues due process violations. It highlights the high burden plaintiffs face in obtaining preliminary injunctions to halt such seizures, emphasizing the public interest in preventing the distribution of potentially illegal substances. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Due Process Clause, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Controlled Substances Act, Asset Forfeiture, Probable Cause |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Pllc v. United States Drug Enforcement Admin was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Due Process Clause or from the Ninth Circuit:
-
County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
Ninth Circuit: Fire policy exclusion for earth movement bars landslide claimNinth Circuit · 2026-04-23
-
Petrey v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
Ninth Circuit: Cruise line's communication methods met ADA requirementsNinth Circuit · 2026-04-23
-
J. R. v. Ventura Unified School District
Ninth Circuit: 'White Lives Matter' shirt not protected speech in schoolsNinth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Rent Control Ordinance ChallengeNinth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
United States v. State of California
Ninth Circuit Upholds Federal Authority Over Immigration EnforcementNinth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
McAuliffe v. Robinson Helicopter Company
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Product Liability Claim Against Helicopter ManufacturerNinth Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservati v. Usdoi
Ninth Circuit Upholds DOI Approval of Reservation Land Lease for MineNinth Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
United States v. Bolandian
Ninth Circuit Upholds Warrantless Vehicle Search Based on Probable CauseNinth Circuit · 2026-04-21