TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents 1
Table of Authorities 2
Issues Presented for Review 3
Summary of Argument 4
Argument 5
The District Court Properly Found that the Park
Rangers Did Not Have Probable Cause to Seize
Video Tapes, Tapes and Film. 5

Standard of Review 5

Relevant Facts 5

Ranger Cessna Needed Probable Cause to Board
and Search the Houseboat. 8

The Park Rangers Needed Probable Cause to Seize
Specific Property 12

Conclusion 17

Statement of Related Cases 18

Certificate of Compliance 18

Certificate of Service 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page

Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355
(9th Cir. 1994)...................................................................... 11

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266; 37 L.Ed.2d
596; 93 S.Ct. 2535 (1973).................................................. 8,11,12

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321; 94 L.Ed.2d 347; 107 S.Ct.
1149 (1987)....................................................................... 13,16

Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1; 109 L.Ed.2d 1; 110 S.Ct.
1632 (1990)...................................................................... 11,15

Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 431; 85 S.Ct. 506
(1965)............................................................................... 13,14

United States v. Hale, 784 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1986)................. 14

United States v. Hilton, 619 F.2d 127 (1st Cir. 1980)................. 10

United States v. Johnstone, 574 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir. 1978)....... 9,12

United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1987)................. 5,9,
12,15

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543; 49 L.Ed.2d
1116; 96 S.Ct. 3074 (1976)............................................. 8,11

United States v. Piner, 608 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979)................. 11

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696; 77 L.Ed.2d 110; 103
S.Ct. 2637 (1983)........................................................... 13,15,
16


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d.)

Page

United States v. Ruano, 647 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1981)................. 10

United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1977).............. 11

CONSTITUTION

Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV...................... 7,10



ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Did Park Ranger Cessna need probable cause to board the houseboat when his sole purpose in boarding the houseboat was to search for evidence of BASE jumping from the cliffs of Navajo Canyon?
Could the Park Rangers have probable cause to believe that the tapes and film seized by them were connected to BASE jumping at Navajo Canyon without some knowledge or reason to believe that the tape and films depicted BASE jumping at Navajo Canyon?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Park Rangers had no administrative authority to board and search the houseboat for evidence of BASE jumping from the cliffs of Navajo canyon and to seize any of Defendants’ property without probable cause.
Park Ranger Cessna’s knowledge of BASE jumping by others off the cliffs of Navajo Canyon and his observing helmets, nylon webbing, and knee and elbow pads on the houseboat, which are ordinarily used for many purposes, may have aroused his suspicion, but they are insufficient articulable facts to make probable cause.
Cameras, tapes and film are commonly used by vacationers to photograph and record many ordinary gatherings and events. They have no distinctive odor or packaging and without knowing or determining their content, the Park Rangers could not have probable cause to believe that the cameras, tapes and film which they seized were in any way connected to BASE jumping from the cliffs of Navajo Canyon.
The District Court properly found that the Park Rangers could not seize and take the cameras, tapes and film with them to examine at their leisure without probable cause and should be sustained.

ARGUMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE PARK RANGERS DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEIZE VIDEO
TAPES, TAPES AND FILM.
Standard of Review:
The standard of review for probable cause is de novo except facts found by the District court must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1987).
Relevant Facts:
The cliffs of Navajo Canyon on Lake Powell in the Glen Canyon Recreational Area in Arizona are known by the Park Rangers for the National Park Service as a BASE jumping area (RT 11/5/96 93, 138; ER 114, 160).
On May 1, 1995, Ranger Cessna was assigned to patrol the Navajo Canyon area of Lake Powell in a motor boat to look for BASE jumping from the canyon walls of Lake Powell (RT 11/5/96 92, 94, 138; ER 114, 160). While patrolling, he noticed a houseboat floating beneath a canyon wall in
____________
Note Abbreviations: “CR” is Clerk’s Record; “ER” is Excerpts of Record; “RT” is Reporter’s Transcript.


Navajo Canyon that he knew was used for BASE jumping (RT 11/5/96 93, 94; ER 115, 116). As he approached the houseboat, he observed a
helmet, nylon webbing and knee and elbow pads, which appeared to be damp, on the rear of the houseboat (RT 11/5/96 94, 110, 116, 122; ER 116, 132, 138, 144).
Ranger Cessna believed BASE jumping was taking place and requested permission to board the houseboat. When he did not receive permission, he said that he was boarding the houseboat under Coast Guard authority (RT 11/5/96 95, 123; ER 117, 145). His reason for boarding the houseboat was that he believed that BASE jumping was taking place (RT 11/5/96 123; ER 145).
When Ranger Cessna boarded the houseboat, he went directly through the interior hallways into the living area (RT 11/5/96 96, 121; ER 118, 143). He did not request to see any documents, and testified that he was not conducting a safety inspection of the houseboat in an administrative fashion (RT 11/5/96 121; ER 143).

When other rangers arrived, they searched the houseboat and seized parachutes, parachute packs, helmets, knee and elbow pads, tension boards, log books, a video camera, video tapes, tapes, cameras, film, and 14 photographs of BASE jumping in Zion National Park (RT 11/5/96 110, 157; Ex. 2; ER 132, 179, 298-304).
The rangers did not view the video tapes and film on the houseboat and did not know what the tapes depicted when they seized and took the tapes with them. The evidence reports indicate that the tapes were not viewed until seven days later on May 8, 1995 (ER 298-304).
Defendants moved to suppress all statements made by Defendants, and all items of property seized by the rangers (CR 19,20; ER 7-11) as having been seized without probable cause in violation of Defendants’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (U.S. Const. Amend IV) which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (CR 19, 20; ER 7-11).
The District Court suppressed all statements, and all cameras, film, video tapes, and photographs of BASE jumping in Zion National Park (RT 11/6/96 2, 6, 7, 42; ER 22, 256, 257, 292) but denied Defendants’ Motion to Suppress the parachutes, helmets, tension boards and log books. (RT 11/6/96 2, 6, 7; ER 252, 256, 257).

The District Court found that the Rangers did not have probable cause to seize the video tapes, tapes and film without first viewing them and knowing what they depicted (RT 11/6/96 2, 6, 7, 42; ER 252, 256, 257, 292).
Ranger Cessna Needed Probable Cause to Board and Search the Houseboat.
The Plaintiff, United States, suggests that the automobile exception permitting a search without a warrant after a lawful stop applies to the houseboat. This does not benefit the Plaintiff. The automobile exception only dispenses with the need for a warrant to search the automobile after a lawful stop. It does not dispense with the need for probable cause to make the stop and to search and seize property. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 273; 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 600, 603; 93 S.Ct. 2535 (1973). United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543; 49 L.Ed.2d 1116; 96 S.Ct. 3074 (1976).

Ranger Cessna’s observing the houseboat floating beneath a canyon wall which he knew was used for BASE jumping (RT 11/5/96 93, 94; ER 115, 116) and his observing a helmet, webbing and knee and elbow pads on the rear deck of the houseboat (RT 11/5/96 94, 110, 116, 122; ER 116, 132, 138, 144) may have aroused his suspicion that BASE jumping was taking place, but suspicion is not probable cause. United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir. 1987). United States v. Johnstone, 574 F.2d 1269, 1273 (5th Cir. 1978).
Helmets, nylon webbing and knee and elbow pads have many uses, among them cliff climbing, roller skating and bicycling. Ranger Cessna knew that nylon webbing is used for rock climbing; and that helmets are worn for white water kayaking and are appropriate for rock climbing (11/5/96 111, 112; ER 133, 134). Probable cause cannot be inferred from mere possession of articles in common use.
Ranger Cessna’s testimony determines the parameter of his authority to board and search the houseboat. He testified that when he boarded the houseboat he did not request to see any documents, or life preservers, and was not conducting a safety inspection of the boat in an administrative fashion (RT 11/5/96, 121; ER 143). He further testified that when he boarded the houseboat he walked directly through the interior hallway into the living quarters (RT 11/5/96, 96-97, 121; ER 118-19, 143).

The Plaintiff, United States, contends that Ranger Cessna boarded the houseboat under his regulatory authority to inspect documentation and safety equipment, and then when aboard, observed a parachute pack which made probable cause to search the houseboat (Pl.Br. 13). This suggestion overlooks that Ranger Cessna testified that he did not board the houseboat to conduct an administrative inspection, but that he boarded the houseboat solely because he believed that BASE jumping was taking place (RT 11/5/96 121, 123; ER 143, 145) and that he did not observe the parachute pack until after he improperly passed through the private living quarters (RT 11/5/96, 128; ER 150). There is no evidence that the houseboat was violating any boating regulations.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (U.S. Const. Amend. IV) applies to boats the same as to other forms of transportation except random stops (seizures) of boats are permitted to inspect documentation and safety equipment since boats are not confined to roadways. Administrative authority to board pleasure boats in inland waters is not carte blanche, but must be reasonable and is limited to inspecting documentation and safety equipment. It does not permit searching private living quarters without probable cause. Ranger Cessna was not making an administrative inspection, he was making a criminal investigation. United States v. Hilton, 619 F.2d 127, 131 (1st Cir. 1980). United States v. Ruano (note 5), 647 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir. 1981). United States v. Piner, 608 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1979). United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 807, 811 (5th Cir. 1977).
If Ranger Cessna had boarded the houseboat to inspect documentation and safety equipment, he could have observed what was in plain view, but he could not board the houseboat without probable cause before he came aboard under the pretext of administrative duties when his sole purpose for boarding the houseboat was to search for evidence of BASE jumping. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4; 109 L.Ed.2d 1, 6; 110 S.Ct. 1632 (1990). Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1360-61 (9th Cir. 1994).

An argument similar to that made by Plaintiff, United States, was made in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 273; 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 606, 603; 93 S.Ct. 2535 (1973) (supra.) in which officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service claimed the right to stop a truck 25 miles from the Mexican border under their statutory authority to check for illegal immigrants; but the Supreme Court held that administrative authority granted by statute to stop and inspect at a reasonable distance from the border violated the Fourth Amendment and that they had to have probable cause to make the stop. Also, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116; 96 S.Ct. 3074 (1976).
Since Ranger Cessna was not making an administrative inspection, he did not have probable cause to board the houseboat and seize any of Defendants’ property and the District Court properly suppressed all video tapes, tapes and films. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 273; 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 600, 603; 93 S.Ct. 2535 (1973). United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir. 1987). United States v. Johnstone, 574 F.2d 1269, 1273 (5th Cir. 1978).
The Park Rangers Needed Probable Cause to Seize Specific Property. On May 1, 1995, the Park Rangers seized two video cameras, a Kodak camera, seven 35 mm film cannisters, seven video tapes, two rolls of 35 mm film and slide file, and 14 photographs of BASE jumping in Zion National Park (RT 11/5/96 110, 157; Ex. 2; ER 132, 179, 256, 298-304) without knowing what the video tapes and rolls of film depicted. The Evidence Record indicates that the video tapes were not reviewed until seven days later, on May 8, 1995 (ER 301, 302).

The Park Rangers must have had probable cause to seize specific property. To have probable cause to seize property, the Park Rangers must have had reason to believe that there was some connection between specific property seized and BASE jumping in Navajo Canyon. They could not have a reasonable belief of a connection between the property seized and criminal activity without some knowledge of what the tapes and film which they seized depicted. They could no