42)  SUMMARY JUDGMENTS:  Couveau v. American Airlines, 99-55032 (9th Cir. July 17, 2000).  Where the record is silent as to a district court's basis for granting the defendants summary judgment, the judgment cannot be affirmed based on a plaintiff's violation of Local Rule 7.9 of the Central District of California due to her filing opposition her papers two days late.  Reinhardt and Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Breyer, District Judges.  Per Curiam.  W. Evans of Pasadena, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  K. O'Brien of Sacramento, CA, for the defendants.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

43)  MEDICARE:  Association of American Medical Colleges v. USA, 99-56190 (9th Cir. July 11, 2000).  A challenge brought by various medical associations and teaching hospitals against a nationwide program of audits for reimbursements made to teaching hospitals under Part B of the Medicare Act was not ripe for adjudication as it rested on contingent future events.  B. Fletcher (author), Kozinski, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.  L. Homer of Baltimore, Maryland, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  P. Robbins of Washington, DC, for the defendant-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

44)  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT / PRIVACY / OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL:  Favish v. Office of Independent Counsel, 98-55594 (9th Cir. July 12, 2000).  The FOIA's personal privacy exemption, 5 USC Sec. 552(b)(7)(A), extended to photos relating to the death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., Deputy Counsel to the President;  the expectable invasion of the privacy of Foster's surviving family that would be caused by the release of the photos which had been made for law enforcement purposes had to be balanced against the public purpose to be served by their disclosure;  dissenting in part, Judge Pregerson agreed with the majority that Foster's surviving family members have a cognizable privacy interest in the post-mortem photos of Foster's face and body that Favish requested;  Judge Pregerson also agreed that the family's privacy interests in the post-mortem photos taken at the scene of Foster's death had to be balanced against the public interest in disclosure;  however, he disagreed that remand for an in camera inspec-ion of the photos was necessary before these interests could be properly balanced, as he thought the affidavit and exhibits contained in the "Vaughn index" submitted by the Office of Independent Counsel were sufficiently detailed to justify withholding the photographs under FOIA Exemption 7(C);  Judge Pregerson also thought the district court had properly balanced the family's privacy interest against the public's interest in the production of the photos and had properly concluded that their disclosure could reasonably be expected to constituted an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of family members.  Pregerson (dissenting in part), Noonan (author), and O'Scannlain, Circuit Judges.  A. Favish pro se;  AUSA L. Weidman of Santa Ana, CA, for the defendant.(Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

45)  FALSE CLAIMS ACT:  USA v. University of Southern California, 98-56020 (9th Cir. July 10, 2000).  In a False Claims Act qui tam action the district court had the power to modify the terms of the parties' settlement agreement so as to bring it into compliance with the Act and Ninth Circuit precedent.  Browning, Goodwin (author), and Graber, Circuit Judges.  A. Galvan of Los Angeles, CA, and D. Gossett of Washington, DC, for the plaintiff-appellant;  R. Bonner of Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

46)  ABSTENTION:  Green v. City of Tucson, 99-15625 (9th Cir. July 6, 2000).  The Younger abstention doctrine requires a district court to dismiss a federal action where the plaintiffs have an opportunity to intervene in an ongoing state proceeding that provides them an adequate opportunity for their federal claims to be heard.  Leavy (author), T.G. Nelson, and Hawkins, Circuit Judges.  W. Risner of Tucson, AZ, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  D. McLaughlin of Phoenix, AZ, for the defendant-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

47)  ABSTENTION:  Tocher v. City of Santa Ana, 97-55628 (9th Cir. July 14, 2000).  Municipal ordinances creating a permit sys-tem and purporting to regulate the price, route, and services of towing businesses and/or individuals engaged in the tow truck business as either principals or employees are preempted by 49 USC Sec. 14501(c).  Brunetti (author), Rymer, and Silverman, Circuit Judges.  B. Kaufman of Santa Ana, CA, for the defendants-appellants;  M. McGovern of Knoxville, TN, for the plaintiff-appellee;  M. Rosen of Santa Ana, CA, for the intervenor-appellant.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

48)  FREEDOM OF SPEECH:  Alameda Books, Inc. v. Los Angeles, 98-56200 (9th Cir. July 27, 2000).  The district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that ordinances of the City of Los Angeles prohibiting the operation of adult businesses that both sell adult products and contain facilities for the viewing of adult movies were inadequately supported by evidence of adverse impact so as to violate the First Amendment.  Boochever, Hawkins (author), and Thomas, Circuit Judges.  M. Klekner of Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  G. Garrou of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

49)  CIVIL RIGHTS / DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:  Estate of Macias v. Ihde, 99-15662 (9th Cir. July 20, 2000).  The district court erred in ruling that the victim's murder was the constitutional deprivation on which this civil rights action was based rather than the defendant's violation of the victim's equal protection by providing her with inferior police protection.  B. Fletcher, Alarcon (author), and Hawkins, Circuit Judges.  R. Seltzer of Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  M. Senneff of Santa Rose, CA, for the defendants-appellees.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

50)  IMMIGRATION LAW / WELFARE REFORM ACT:Aleman v. Glickman, 98-16893 (9th Cir. July 17, 2000).  Welfare Reform Act provisions 8 USC Secs. 1612(a)(2)(B) and 1645, which determines a permanent resident alien's eligibility for food stamps, do not irrationally differentiate between marriage that ends in divorce and marriage that ends in death and, thus, do not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Hug and Wardlaw (author), Circuit Judges, and Moskowitz, District Judge.  W. Morris of Tucson, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellant;  D. Kant of Washington, DC, for the defendant-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

51)  IMMIGRATION LAW / ASYLUM:  Kozulin v. INS, 99-70162 (9th Cir. July 14, 2000).  An alien's petition for asylum and withholding of deportation was denied where he failed to present sufficient evidence that any mistreatment he suffered in Russia was on account of his political opinion or that upon his return to Russia he risked disproportionately severe punishment for his illegal departure to the United States.  Hug, Goodwin (author), and Brunetti, Circuit Judges.  D. Kowalski of Seattle, WA, for the petitioner;  R. Evans of Washington, DC, for the respondent.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

52)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Abovian v. INS, 98-70934 (9th Cir. July 19, 2000).  The Board of Immigration Appeals violated a petitioner's rights to due process by making an independent adverse credibility findings without affording him an opportunity to establish his credibility;  as the BIA's finding that the petitioner did not show past persecution because of political opinion was inextricably linked to its adverse credibility finding, it was an inadequate alternative basis for the BIA's decision;  dissenting, Judge Wallace thought that the majority unnecessarily decided this case on a constitutional issue not briefed by the parties, and that the majority's alternate holding failed to follow the Supreme Court's standard of review and erroneously faulted the BIA decision to deny the asylum petition based on the petitioner's failure to present sufficient evidence.  Wallace (dissenting), Pregerson (author), and Thomas, Circuit Judges.  Y. Hong of Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioners;  R. Blaya of Washington, DC, for the respondent.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

53)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Larita-Martinez v. INS, 98-71452 (9th Cir. July 21, 2000).  An alien attempting to establish that the BIA violated his right to due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence.  Wallace (author), Trott, and Gould, Circuit Judges.  A. Parker of Santa Monica, CA, for the petitioner;  K. Larson of Washington, DC, for the respondent. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

54)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  USA v. Garza-Sanchez, 99-50596 (9th Cir. July 7, 2000).  An immigration judge was not required to inform an alien of possible constitutional challenges to the immigration laws which, if successful, would render him eligible for a discretionary waiver of deportation.  Wallace, Trott, and Gould (author), Circuit Judges.  DFPD K. House of Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA K. Denley of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

55)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 99-70578 (9th Cir. July 25, 2000).  The USCA lacked jurisdiction to consider an alien's petition for review of a BIA decision upholding an immigration judge's decision that it was reasonable to believe that the alien knowingly participated in drug trafficking.  Wallace, Trott (author), and Gould, Circuit Judges.  J. Bacho of El Centro, CA, for the petitioner;  P. Kovac of Washington, DC, for the respondent. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

56)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Gorbach v. Reno, 98-35723 (9th Cir. July 20, 2000).  Sitting en banc, the USCA held that the power to confer citizenship through the process of naturalization does not necessarily include the power to revoke that citizenship;  the Attorney General's "Revocation of Naturalization" regulation, 8 CFR Sec. 340.1, which provides for administrative denaturalization, is void for lack of statutory authority;  Concurring, Judge Thomas, joined by Browning, T.G. Nelson, Hawkins, and Tashima, wrote separately to express the belief that when the court of appeals reviews an administrative agency's construction of the statute it administers, the proper analytical framework is dictated by Chevron v. NRDC, 467 US 837 (1984), and that applying that analytical framework to the issues presented here Congress has unambiguously expressed its statutory intent;  thus it is not necessary to determine whether the agency construction is reasonable.  Hug, Browning, Schroeder, O'Scannlain, T.G. Nelson, Kleinfeld (author), Hawkins, Tashima, Thomas (concurring), Graber, and Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.  P. Maher of Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellants;  J. Franklin of Washington, DC, for the plaintiffs.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

57)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Pichardo v. INS, 98-70759 (9th Cir. July 7, 2000).  An alien's conviction for making a false claim of citizenship in violation of 18 USC Sec. 911 established an independent and non-waivable ground for finding the alien inadmissible.  Lay (author), Pregerson, and Hawkins, Circuit Judges.  W. Jordan-Curtis of Tucson, AZ, for the petitioner;  M. Gatton of Washington, DC, for the respondent. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

58)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Agbuya v. INS, 98-70965 (9th Cir. July 18, 2000).  An alien who was threatened, kidnapped and physically abused by a violent, anti-government guerrilla group because they perceived her to be pro-government and an enemy to their cause established a well-founded fear of future persecution;  dissenting, Judge Hall thought the majority had stretched the meaning of political persecution to cover aliens persecuted on purely economic grounds.  Schroeder, B. Fletcher (author), and Hall (dissenting) Circuit Judges.  R. Perez of Encino, CA, for the petitioner;  D. Keener of Washington, DC, for the respondent.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

59)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Chouchkov v. INS, 98-70687 (9th Cir. July 20, 2000).  An alien whose opposition to a Russian government funded deal to sell nuclear material to Iran, which resulted in threats to his own life and to the lives of members of his family, raised a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.  Pregerson and Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Shadur (author), District Judge.  A. Bases of South Pasadena, CA, for the petitioners;  F. Hunger of Washington, DC, for the respondent. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

60)  IMMIGRATION LAW:  Sidhu v. INS, 98-71363 (9th Cir. July 20, 2000).  Where the immigration judge has reason to question an applicant's credibility, and the applicant fails to produce non-duplicative material, and easily available corroborating evidence, and provides no credible explanation for such failures, an adverse credibility finding will withstand appellate review.  Browning, Hall (author), and Silverman, Circuit Judges.  H. Han of San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner;  C. Bither of Washington, DC, for the respondent. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

61)  IMMIGRATION LAW / ILLEGAL REENTRY / VENUE: USA v. Ruelas-Arreguin, 99-50213 (9th Cir. July 19, 2000).  Under the continuing offense doctrine, a deported alien who illegally reentered the United States in California and traversed unseen to Arizona where he was arrested, is properly prosecuted as an illegal alien found in the United States in the California district where he initially entered or in the Arizona district.  Wallace, Pregerson, and Thomas (author), Circuit Judges.  FPD M. Polom of San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA D. Curnow of San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

62)  CIVIL RIGHTS / FALSE ACCUSATIONS / DUE PROCESS: Devereaux v. Perez, 97-35781 (9th Cir. July 12, 2000).  A defendant charged with child sexual abuse based on evidence gained from interviews of child witnesses using questionable interview techniques failed to show that his civil rights were violated as the techniques were not so patently violative of a constitutional right that reasonable officials would know without guidance from the courts that the action was unconstitutional;  dissenting, Judge Kleinfeld thought that the defendant had presented solid evidence that the defendants actively coerced witnesses to tell lies that would subject him to punishment for crimes he did not commit, and for that wrong there could be no immunity as any government official should know that a person has a constitutional right not to be framed.  Rymer and Kleinfeld (dissenting), Circuit Judges, and Miller (author), District Judge.  S. Lacy of Wenatchee, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  P. McMahon of Wenatchee, WA, and J. Freimund of Olympia, WA, for the defendants-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

63)  POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS: Robinson v. Solano County, 99-15225 (9th Cir. July 12, 2000).  The contours of the right to be free from excessive force are sufficiently clear in the Ninth Circuit to put officers on notice that unreasonably pointing guns at a suspect's head may constitute excessive force;  dissenting, Judge O'Scannlain did not think there was clearly established law such as to put the officers on notice as to the potential illegality of their conduct.  B. Fletcher (author), Canby, and O'Scannlain (dissenting) Circuit Judges.  W. Simpich of Oakland, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  T. Cassidy of Sacramento, CA, for the defendant-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

64)  POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS / JURY INSTRUCTIONS:Duran v. City of Maywood, 97-55262 (9th Cir. July 11, 2000).  In a civil rights action brought by the parents of a man shot and killed by a police officer, the district court did not err in refusing jury instructions on excessive and unreasonable actions by the officer, unlawful and forcible entry, and a heightened duty of care.  Pregerson, Ferguson, and Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.  Per Curiam.  T. Beck of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants;  T. Francis of Newport Beach, CA, for the defendants-appellees.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

65)  PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT:  USA v. Lindberg, 99-10371 (9th Cir. July 27, 2000).  On an issue of first impression, the USCA held that to recover under the Hyde Amendment, which allows litigation expenses to be awarded to a prevailing criminal defendant where the government's position was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, the defendant must show more than that the gov-ernment's position was not "substantially justified," the standard for recovering costs under the Hyde Amendment's civil counterpart, the Equal Access to Justice Act.  Schroeder, Hawkins (author), and Fisher, Circuit Judges.  W. Cohan of San Diego, CA, for the de-fendant-appellant;  AUSA T. Muehleck of Honolulu, HI, for the plaintiff.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 
66)  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE / JURISDICTION: USA v. Webb, 99-30155 (9th Cir. July 28, 2000).  Following cession of unallotted lands pursuant to the Dawes Act, land allotted to Nez Perce Indians remained "Indian country" and thus brought within federal jurisdiction a Native American defendant who had committed sexual contact with a minor.  Browning, B. Fletcher (author), and Gould, Circuit Judges.  AUSA T. Derden of Boise, ID, for the plaintiff-appellee;  AFPD G. Smith of Spokane, WA, for the defendant-appellant.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

67)  JUVENILES:  USA v. John Doe, a juvenile, 99-50250 (9th Cir. July 20, 2000).  Under 18 USC Sec. 5033, when federal officers arrest a juvenile and the government fails to notify the juvenile's parents of the juvenile's right to remain silent and the juvenile confesses, that confession must be suppressed.  Browning, Noonan, and Silverman (author), Circuit Judges.  FPD L. Daniels of San Di-ego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA J. Schuman of San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

68)  SENTENCING:  USA v. Reyes-Platero, 99-50234 (9th Cir. July 11, 2000).  On an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit joined the Eighth in extending the rule of Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973), to treaties and held that an unconditionally guilty plea cures any pre-plea defect arising under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, just as it cures any pre-plea constitutional defect;  assuming without deciding that the Convention creates enforceable individual rights, any violation of those rights was cured in this case by the defendant's guilty plea.  Wallace (author), Trott, and Gould, Circuit Judges.  G. Wasson of San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA D. Padgette of San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

69)  RIGHT TO COUNSEL:  Schell v. Witek, 97-56197 (9th Cir. July 11, 2000).  A defendant who brought a motion for substitution of counsel based on "irreconcilable conflict" that, unbeknownst to the defendant, was never ruled on by the state trial court and apparently overlooked when the case was reassigned to a different court, was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus to determine the extent of his conflict with counsel.  Hug, Schroeder, Pregerson, O'Scannlain, Trott (author), Fernandez, Tashima, Thomas, Silverman, Graber, and Fisher, Circuit Judges.  C. Klauschie of Pasadena, CA, for the petitioner-appellant;  S. Matthews of Los Angeles, CA, for the respondents-appellees. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

70)  RIGHT TO COUNSEL:  USA v. Musa, 99-50183 (9th Cir. July 14, 2000).  A district court abused its discretion by simply denying a defendant's request for substitute counsel without any inquire into the defendant's reasons for wanting substitute counsel.  Thompson, W. Fletcher, and Fisher (author), Circuit Judges. C. DeVito of West Hills, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA M. Young of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

71)  PLEA AGREEMENTS:  USA v. Clark, 99-30200 (9th Cir. July 17, 2000).  A plea agreement precluding prosecution of additional charges in connection with "this investigation" did not preclude subsequent prosecution for unconnected crimes, where both the prosecutor and the defense attorney did not understand the agreement to include other crimes, and the defendant's contrary belief was unreasonable.  Hug, Brunetti, and Gould (author), Circuit Judges.  C. Arkoosh of Gooding, ID, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA K. Lindquist of Boise, ID, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

72)  COMPETENCY TO ENTER GUILTY PLEA: USA v. Timbana, 97-30001 (9th Cir. July 28, 2000).  A district court did not err in finding a defendant competent to enter a guilty plea where it conducted a searching inquiry into the defendant's competency and carefully explained in terms the defendant could understand the constitutional rights waived by his guilty plea;  dissenting in part, Judge Kleinfeld thought that where a person's understanding of his plea is questionable and there are substantial reasons to doubt that the person committed the crime, a district judge ought to inquire sufficiently to assure that he did, before convicting him;  without such an inquiry, the plea violates Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 11;  Judge Kleinfeld thought it did in this case and that the USCA should reverse.  Alarcon (author), Rymer, and Kleinfeld (dissenting in part), Circuit Judges.  G. Silvey of Boise, ID, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA J. Rodriguez of Boise, ID, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

73)  EVIDENCE:  USA v. Kellington, 98-30193 (9th Cir. July 7, 2000).  In a criminal prosecution of an attorney for obstruction of justice under 18 USC Sec. 1512(b)(2)(b) and conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 USC Sec. 371 for conduct arising from his representation of a client, evidence of the attorney's ethical obligations was not only admissible and relevant to the issue of the attorney's intent, but the attorney has a right under the Sixth Amendment to argue that his ethical obligations established a bona fide legal repre-sentation defense;  dissenting, Judge Tashima thought that the mandate was clear and unequivocal and left no matter open:  it reversed the judgment of acquittal and remanded for entry of judgment and sentencing;  where a mandate directs the entry of judgment, it is error to fail to enter judgment.  B. Fletcher (author) and Tashima (dissenting), Circuit Judges, and Ishii, District Judge.  AUSA F. Papagni of Eugene, OR, for the plaintiff-appellant;  N. Sepenuk of Portland, OR, for the defendant-appellee. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

74)  EVIDENCE /  TELEMARKETING FRAUD: USA v. Ciccone, 98-10483 (9th Cir. July 19, 2000).  A district court properly excluded evidence proffered by a defendant charged with wire fraud to rebut specific intent;  the evidence showed merely that donors thought that they had received a benefit;  it did not show that the donors actually gained or that the defendant's scheme was beneficial to anyone other than the defendant.  Hug, Ferguson (author), and Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.  D. Mitchell of Las Vegas, NV, for the appellant;  K. Landreth of Las Vegas, NV, for the USA.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

75)  EVIDENCE:  USA v. Magallon-Jimenez, 99-50561 (9th Cir. July 21, 2000).  Where five kilograms of cocaine were found in a Pepsi box lodged between the defendant's feet on the passenger side of a vehicle involved in an active drug transaction, a rational trier of fact could conclude that the defendant knew about, possessed, and intended to distribute that cocaine.  Trott (author), Fernandez, and McKeown, Circuit Judges.  DFPD K. House of Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA L. Feldman of Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff. (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

76)  SEARCH & SEIZURE:  USA v. Hinton, 99-10344 (9th Cir. July 25, 2000).  There is no expectation of privacy in the addresses on the outside of a package sent via the US postal service;  there is also no reasonable expectation of privacy in a parcel locker in a post office.  Tashima and Graber, Circuit Judges, and Kelleher (author), District Judge.  AFPD G. Hansen of San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA M. Kane of San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

77)  SEARCH & SEIZURE:  USA v. Cormier, 99-30182 (9th Cir. July 24, 2000).  A motel guest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel's guest registration records.  Hug, Brunetti (author), and Gould, Circuit Judges.  B. Flegenheimer of Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellant;  AUSA R. London of Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

78)  SEARCH & SEIZURE:  USA v. Arvizu, 99-10229 (9th Cir. July 7, 2000).  The illegality of a vehicle stop not based on reasonable suspicion taints all the evidence seized as the result of the ensuing search and that taint is not purged by the driver's consent to the search; here, no events occurred after the stop to purge the subsequent consent and search of the taint.  Politz, Reinhardt (author), and Hawkins, Circuit Judges.  FPD V. Brambl of Tucson, AZ, for the appellant;  AUSA C. Cabanillas of Tucson, AZ, for the appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/) 

79)  WIRETAPS:  USA v. Reyna, 99-10333 (9th Cir. July 31, 2000).  Wiretap evidence must be suppressed when a district court's order approving the wiretap on the application of an Assistant United States Attorney is issued before the Attorney General or her designate authorizes the application.   Lay, D.W. Nelson, and Thomas (author), Circuit Judges.  J. Wilson of Oakland, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant;  M. Rosenbush of San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellee.  (Download the full text at www.ce9.uscourts.gov/)