F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 3 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 04-2112
ISIDRO PACHECO-ESPINOSA, (D.C. No. 03-CR-422-P)
(D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**
A grand jury indicted Defendant Isidro Pacheco-Espinosa for possession of
marijuana with the intent to distribute, and conspiring to do the same, both in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b). The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress
evidence a border patrol agent seized from his vehicle. Defendant entered a conditional
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(a)(2). On appeal, Defendant argues the search of his vehicle violated the
Fourth Amendment because the border patrol agent lacked reasonable suspicion to justify
the investigatory detention.
We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Taverna, 348 F.3d 873, 877 (10th Cir. 2003).
The ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is a question
of law we review de novo. Id. The law governing the reasonableness of a roving border
patrol stop under the Fourth Amendment is well-established. See United States v.
Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d 1127, 1129-30 (10th Cir. 2003). After thoroughly reviewing
the record, we accept the district court’s factual findings. Further, we hold the border
patrol agent’s search of Defendant’s vehicle was reasonable for substantially the same
reasons the district court expressed in its well-reasoned order denying Defendant’s motion
to suppress. Accordingly, we attach the district court’s order as an appendix and
AFFIRM.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
2
APPENDIX
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. NO. CR 03-422 JP
ISIDRO PACHECO-ESPINOSA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On April 9, 2003, Defendant Isidro Pacheco-Espinosa filed a Motion to Suppress
Physical Evidence and Statements (Doc. No. 17). Defendant argues that any statements
and physical evidence, including the confiscated marijuana, cannot be used as evidence in
his criminal trial because they were taken or seized after his illegal detention and arrest.
The Court held a hearing on the motion on July 1, 2003. On July 7, 2003, Defendant filed
a Supplement to Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 32). Having considered all the
briefs, the supplement, and the evidence presented during the hearing, the Court
concludes that Defendant’s motion should be denied.
I. Factual Findings
On December 7, 2002, at around 2:50 p.m., United States Border Patrol Agent
David Scrivener was on roving patrol in a marked border patrol sedan driving in a
southwesterly direction on New Mexico Highway 171, east of Interstate 25, near Truth or
Consequences, New Mexico. Highway 171 leads from Truth or Consequences to
Elephant Butte, New Mexico. Agent Scrivener had worked as a Border Patrol agent for
2 ½ years and was assigned to the Truth or Consequences area. Agent Scrivener is
familiar with the usual patterns of traffic on Highways 171, 181, 195, and Rock Canyon
Road, which are roadways surrounding the Elephant Butte Lake area. Agent Scrivener is
also familiar with the vehicles operated by local residents that use those roadways.
Between October and April, the highways and roads in this area are primarily used by
local residents, as it is off season for the lake during the winter months. In early
December the traffic on Rock Canyon Road is at a particularly low level. Agent
Scrivener estimated that only three or four vehicles an hour travel on Rock Canyon Road
in early December. Additionally, in Agent Scrivener’s experience, these back highways
and roads are frequently used by alien and drug smugglers attempting to circumvent the
immigration checkpoint located on Interstate 25 north of Truth or Consequences when the
checkpoint is open and operating. Agent Scrivener stated that from about November 7,
2002, to December 7, 2002, there were roughly 10 to 11 illegal alien loads and three to
2
five illegal narcotics loads intercepted on the back roadways (Highways 171, 181, 195,
and Rock Canyon Road) in the Elephant Butte area.
On December 7, 2002, the checkpoint north of Truth or Consequences was
operational. As a result, border patrol agents had information that the highways
surrounding the checkpoint were being used by alien and drug smugglers attempting to
circumvent the checkpoint.
While Agent Scrivener was driving in a southwesterly direction on Highway 171,
he passed a gray 1992 Ford pickup truck traveling in the opposite direction on Highway
171. The point where Agent Scrivener initially encountered the truck was approximately
120 miles from the Mexican border. As the pickup truck passed Agent Scrivener, Agent
Scrivener noticed that the driver did not acknowledge his presence and had a dead stare
on the road ahead of him. The driver held the steering wheel rigidly with both hands.
The truck peaked Agent Scrivener’s interest because it was the same make, model, and
color of a truck from the Hatch, New Mexico area that had recently been used to smuggle
eight illegal aliens. Agent Scrivener turned around to follow the truck and requested a
registration, stolen vehicle, and 72-hour lane check. The checks revealed that the truck
was registered to Oscar or Aurora Hinojosa from Socorro, New Mexico; the vehicle was
not stolen; and the truck had crossed the border from the Republic of Mexico at the Port
of Entry in Columbus, New Mexico, which is west of Interstate 25, at around 11:30 a.m.
3
(Eastern Standard Time) the morning of December 7, 2002. The gray pickup truck was
not the same truck used for smuggling aliens in Hatch.
As Agent Scrivener followed the pickup truck, the truck made a left turn and
headed north on Highway 195. Agent Scrivener followed the truck until it made an
abrupt turn into the Elephant Butte General Store and stopped by the gas pumps. Agent
Scrivener drove north on Highway 195 past the Elephant Butte General Store and stopped
at a Diamond Shamrock gas station located at the intersection of Highway 195 and Rock
Canyon Road, about a quarter of a mile beyond the general store. Agent Scrivener began
putting gas in his car.
While Agent Scrivener finished fueling, he noticed that the truck began driving
north on Highway 195 and then turned onto Rock Canyon Road. Rock Canyon Road
leads to Interstate 25 at exit 89 and then continues past Interstate 25 as New Mexico
Highway 52 towards the town of Cuchillo and the Gila National Wilderness. In order to
try to pass the pickup truck on Rock Canyon Road, Agent Scrivener took Highway 195 to
Interstate 25. Agent Scrivener entered the interstate at exit 83, drove north, exited
Interstate 25 at exit 89, and headed southeast on Rock Canyon Road.
As Agent Scrivener drove on Rock Canyon Road, he again encountered the gray
Ford pickup truck. Agent Scrivener passed the truck and for a second time noticed that
the driver had a dead stare on his face, would not acknowledge the agent, and had the
same rigid posture. Agent Scrivener then turned around and followed the pickup truck.
4
Agent Scrivener observed that the truck was traveling at a speed of 35 miles per hour, 20
miles per hour below the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The agent also saw that
the truck appeared to be riding low. Agent Scrivener thought it unusual that someone
traveling from Columbus to Socorro would take a route other than Interstate 25 because
Interstate 25 is the shorter and faster route.
Based on all his observations, Agent Scrivener believed the pickup truck was
attempting to circumvent the checkpoint on Interstate 25, so he decided to stop the truck
to investigate if the truck was transporting illegal aliens. Agent Scrivener stopped the
truck at the junction of Rock Canyon Road and Interstate 25 at exit 89. As Agent
Scrivener approached the truck, he noticed two large burlap sacks in the bed of the truck.
Agent Scrivener observed that the sacks had the outlines of brick-like objects. The sacks
were similar to sacks from other cases in which marijuana had been seized.
Agent Scrivener approached the driver and asked the driver, identified as
Defendant Isidro Pacheco-Espinosa, his citizenship. Defendant responded that he was a
resident alien. As Defendant took his resident alien card out of his wallet, Agent
Scrivener noticed that Defendant’s hands were shaking. When asked about his
destination, Defendant said he left Albuquerque that morning at 5:00 a.m. and drove three
hours to fish with some friends. When asked who his friends were, Defendant hesitated
and said “Jesus” and “Castro.” When asked the last names of his friends, Defendant
paused and rolled his eyes to seek an answer. When Agent Scrivener asked Defendant if
5
he owned the truck, Defendant told the agent that the truck belonged to his friend “Jesus
Jimenez,” which was a different name than that given by dispatch as the registered owner.
As Agent Scrivener talked to Defendant, Defendant stuttered when answering questions.
Defendant also denied having crossed into Mexico and stated that the last time he went to
Mexico in the truck was several weeks ago. When asked why Defendant chose this route,
Defendant did not have an answer.
Agent Scrivener then inquired as to what was in the two burlap sacks. Defendant
replied that he did not know what was in them and that his friend gave them to him to
drop off at an Albuquerque store. Consequently, Agent Scrivener notified the checkpoint
that he needed a drug-detection dog and asked Defendant if he could inspect the exterior
of the truck with the dog. Defendant hesitated but said yes.
At approximately 3:15 p.m. a drug-detection dog arrived and alerted to the burlap
sacks in the bed of the truck. The agents opened the sacks and found several bundles of
marijuana. The agents transported Defendant to the border patrol station. Upon further
search of Defendant’s truck, agents found another burlap sack and a small box containing
more bundles of marijuana. The total weight of the marijuana discovered in the truck was
approximately 340 pounds. After agents advised Defendant of his Miranda rights,
Defendant waived his rights and made incriminating statements to the agents.
6
II. Discussion
The Fourth Amendment applies to seizures of persons, including brief
investigatory stops of vehicles. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). The
Fourth Amendment constrains Border Patrol agents to “stop vehicles only if they are
aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that
reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the
country.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). An officer is
entitled to analyze the facts in light of his experience and training in detecting illegal
entry and smuggling. United States v. Monsisvais, 907 F.2d 987, 990 (10th Cir. 1990).
The Supreme Court has outlined a number of factors to be used in determining whether
there is a reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle in a border area: (1) the characteristics of
the area in which the vehicle is stopped, (2) proximity to the border, (3) usual patterns of
traffic on the particular road, (4) previous experience with alien traffic on the road,
(5) information about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) the driver’s behavior,
such as attempts to evade officers; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as concealed
compartments; (8) appearance that the vehicle is heavily loaded; and (9) other relevant
information. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884-85.
A court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an
officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S.
266, 274 (2002); Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18. The Supreme Court expressly rejected any
7
sort of “divide-and-conquer analysis.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274. As noted by the Tenth
Circuit, “To be sure, an officer’s specific articulable facts, when viewed in isolation, will
often comport with general notions of innocent travel rather than criminal activity . . . the
reasonable suspicion calculus turns on whether the specific articulable facts, when viewed
together through the lens of a reasonable law enforcement officer, justified a brief
roadside detention.” United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 25 F.3d 1481, 1484 (10th Cir.
1994).
Mindful of these principles, the Court will analyze the facts of this case within the
framework of Brignoni-Ponce. First, the characteristics of the area in which Defendant
was stopped support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Agent Scrivener initially passed
Defendant as Defendant was driving in a northerly direction on Highway 171 in the
Elephant Butte, New Mexico area. After Agent Scrivener observed Defendant stop at the
Elephant Butte General Store, Defendant drove north on Highway 195 and then turned
onto Rock Canyon Road. Agent Scrivener stopped Defendant on Rock Canyon Road at
its intersection with Interstate 25. Agent Scrivener testified that Highways 171, 195, and
Rock Canyon Road are frequently used by alien and drug smugglers attempting to
circumvent the immigration checkpoint located on Interstate 25 north of Truth or
Consequences. On the day of the incident in question, this checkpoint was open.
Defendant’s route of travel skirted the Interstate 25 checkpoint, and he was stopped
where Rock Canyon Road intersects with Interstate 25, north of the checkpoint.
8
Moreover, Agent Scrivener estimated that the month before the incident in question there
were roughly 10 to 11 illegal alien loads and three to five illegal narcotics loads
intercepted on the back highways in the Elephant Butte area.
As to the second factor, proximity to the border, the Government concedes that
Defendant was stopped more than 100 miles from the international border. The location
where Agent Scrivener initially encountered Defendant was 120 miles from the Mexican
border, and Defendant was stopped a few miles north of that point. Congress has
authorized border patrol agents to search vehicles “within a reasonable distance from any
external boundary of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). Current regulations
interpret “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from the border. 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2).
The Tenth Circuit has nevertheless held that the regulation does not foreclose searches
beyond that limit. See United States v. Leyba, 627 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir. 1990) (finding
reasonable suspicion justifying stop of vehicle despite fact that stop occurred 124 road
miles from border). Although in United States v. Venzor-Castillo, 991 F.2d 634 (10th
Cir. 1993), the Tenth Circuit concluded that a stop that occurred more than 200 air miles
from the border was not within a reasonable distance of the border and thus was not
supported by reasonable suspicion, this case is distinguishable for a number of reasons.
First, this Court determines that the approximately 120-mile distance in which
Defendant was stopped was a reasonable distance from the border. See Leyba, 627 F.2d
1059 (10th Cir. 1980) (finding reasonable suspicion for stop 124 road miles from border);
9
United States v. Garcia, 732 F.2d 1221, 1225 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding stop 115 miles
from border). A stop just over a hundred road miles from the border stands in marked
contrast to the stop in Venzor-Castillo where “the point of the stop was hundreds of miles
beyond the border on a road bisecting a multitude of entry points, including an adjoining
state.” 991 F.2d at 639. Second, the United States Border Patrol maintains a permanent
checkpoint on Interstate 25 north of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. Defendant
was stopped near the checkpoint in an area that alien and drug smugglers routinely use to
circumvent the checkpoint. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Agent Scrivener
conducted a 72-hour lane check that revealed that Defendant’s truck had crossed the
Mexican border at the Port of Entry in Columbus earlier that morning. One of the vital
elements of Brignoni-Ponce is whether the agent had reason to believe the vehicle had
recently crossed the border. Garcia, 732 F.2d 1221, 1225 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v.
Melendez-Gonzalez, 727 F.2d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit noted,
“Naturally, if the officer has an articulable basis for believing that [a traveler’s point of
origin] was across an international border, distance will have far less significance in
judging the reasonableness of the officer’s decision.” Venzor-Castillo, 991 F.2d at 639.
Because Agent Scrivener had particularized knowledge that Defendant had crossed the
border earlier in the day, the distance from the border is not a critical factor in the
Brignoni-Ponce reasonable suspicion analysis. Therefore, the evidence in this case
supports the Court’s finding that Defendant was stopped within a reasonable distance
10
from the border and that the 120-mile distance from the border does not preclude a
reasonable suspicion determination.
The third Brignoni-Ponce factor, patterns of traffic on Rock Canyon Road, points
in favor of reasonable suspicion. Agent Scrivener testified that the winter months
between October and April are off season for the lake, so that the back highways
surrounding the lake are primarily used by local residents. In early December, traffic on
Rock Canyon Road is particularly light with only an estimated three or four vehicles an
hour traveling on Rock Canyon Road, and those vehicles are usually local residents.
Thus, it would have been unusual for the agent to encounter a vehicle registered in
Socorro on Rock Canyon Road in the middle of winter.
As to the agent’s previous experience with alien traffic on the road, Agent
Scrivener had been with the border patrol for 2 ½ years and had been assigned to the
Truth or Consequences area throughout that time. Agent Scrivener testified that he had
become familiar with the usual patterns of traffic on the highways surrounding the
Elephant Butte Lake area and with the vehicles operated by local residents. Agent
Scrivener also testified that in the winter months border patrol agents frequently
encounter alien and drug smugglers on the back highways of the Elephant Butte Lake
area as they attempt to circumvent the Interstate 25 border patrol checkpoint. Agent
Scrivener’s experience provides some support for a reasonable suspicion determination.
See United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d 1454, 1461 (10th Cir. 1997) (determining
11
that officer’s 3 ½ years of experience as border patrol agent in area where defendant was
stopped was sufficient to satisfy fourth prong of Brignoni-Ponce test).
In regard to the fifth factor, there is no evidence in the record that Agent Scrivener
had specific information about recent illegal border crossings in the area. However,
because the border patrol checkpoint was open that day, agents had information that the
highways surrounding the checkpoint were being used by alien and drug smugglers trying
to avoid the checkpoint, a fact which is relevant to the reasonable suspicion analysis.
The sixth factor – the driver’s behavior – also weighs in favor of a finding of
reasonable suspicion. When Agent Scrivener, who was driving a marked border patrol
sedan, first passed Defendant, Agent Scrivener noticed that Defendant did not
acknowledge his presence, held the steering wheel rigidly with both hands, and had a
dead stare on the road ahead of him. This behavior suggests Defendant was tense and
uneasy. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 275-76 (noting that driver’s slowing down, stiffening of
posture, and failure to acknowledge sighted law enforcement officer may be unusual on
remote road). Furthermore, shortly after Agent Scrivener turned around and began
following Defendant, Defendant made an abrupt turn into the Elephant Butte General
Store and stopped by the gas pumps. Although stopping to get gas is not inherently
suspicious, in this case the abrupt turn into the gas station shortly after being followed by
a marked border patrol vehicle indicates nervousness and an attempt to avoid being
followed by a law enforcement officer. When the agent passed Defendant again on Rock
12
Canyon Road, Agent Scrivener observed for a second time that Defendant had the same
dead stare on the road, would not acknowledge the agent, and gripped the steering wheel
tightly. Agent Scrivener turned around to follow Defendant and noticed that Defendant
was traveling at 35 miles per hour, 20 miles per hour below the posted speed limit. As
the Tenth Circuit has acknowledged, maintaining a noticeably slow speed in the presence
of law enforcement may indicate nervousness. United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 25 F.3d
at 1486.
It is also suspicious that Defendant opted not to drive straight to Socorro on
Interstate 25, the shorter, faster route from the Columbus Port of Entry. Instead,
Defendant chose to drive on New Mexico Highways 171 and 195 and on Rock Canyon
Road, all of which are known to be used as routes to circumvent the Truth or
Consequences checkpoint. See United States v. Barbee, 968 F.2d 1026, 1029 (10th Cir.
1992) (noting that agent’s discovery of driver along road commonly used to avoid Truth
or Consequences checkpoint weighs in favor of reasonable suspicion). Defendant’s
chosen route becomes even more suspicious when one considers that the Columbus Port
of Entry is far west of Interstate 25 and Defendant was stopped on the east side of the
interstate, indicating that at some point Defendant crossed Interstate 25 instead of turning
north onto the interstate, which would have been the shortest route to Socorro.
Defendant’s circuitous path that took him north of the open checkpoint strongly supports
a finding of reasonable suspicion justifying the stop.
13
The seventh factor, unusual aspects of the vehicle, is absent in this case. Agent
Scrivener’s description of the vehicle indicated nothing more than a plain gray pickup
truck. However, the eighth factor, appearance of the vehicle as heavily loaded, points to
reasonable suspicion. Agent Scrivener testified that when he turned around and followed
Defendant’s truck on Rock Canyon Road, he observed that Defendant’s truck appeared to
be riding low, even though the agent could see only one occupant in the truck.
Finally, of substantial probative value is the fact that Agent Scrivener knew that
Defendant’s vehicle had passed through the Columbus Port of Entry into the United
States from Mexico earlier in the day. The Tenth Circuit has acknowledged, “A
fundamental factor supporting an investigatory border patrol stop based on reasonable
suspicion is the likelihood that the subject vehicle has crossed the border.” U.S. v. Doyle,
129 F.3d 1372, 1375 (10th Cir. 1997). The fact that Defendant had crossed the border
earlier in the day is especially significant when combined with the facts that Defendant’s
truck was registered in Socorro and it was winter, because it demonstrates that Defendant
was not likely a tourist visiting Elephant Butte Lake.
This Court recognizes that this is a close case and that each individual fact, when
viewed in isolation, may be consistent with innocent, legitimate travel. Nevertheless, the
Supreme Court has expressly rejected any sort of “divide-and-conquer” analysis and
instead required lower courts to look at the “totality of the circumstances.” Arvizu, 534
U.S. at 273-74. Based on all the above facts, when viewed through the lens of a
14
reasonable law enforcement officer, the Court concludes that Agent Scrivener had
sufficient reasonable articulable suspicion justifying his stop of Defendant’s vehicle. The
information obtained by Agent Scrivener soon after the stop supported Defendant’s
subsequent arrest. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to suppress should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Physical
Evidence and Statements (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE
15