United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 18, 2003
For the Fifth Circuit
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50694
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE RAMON DOMINGUEZ-SANCHEZ
Defendant-Appellant
No. 02-50746
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RICARDO MARTINEZ-BORJON
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas, Pecos
(P-01-CR-259-2-F)
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Ramon Dominguez-Sanchez and Ricardo Martinez-Borjon were
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
traveling on Highway 385 when they were stopped by border patrol
agents. Sanchez and Borjon were arrested after two open sacks
containing bundles of marijuana were found in the back seat of
their vehicle. Sanchez and Borjon filed motions to suppress the
evidence seized and a statement made by one of them at the time of
the stop, arguing that there were no existing articulable
facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that justified the stop of
their vehicle. A magistrate judge heard the motions and
recommended that they be denied. The district court then conducted
de novo review at a hearing and the motions to suppress were
denied. Sanchez and Borjon entered conditional guilty pleas to
possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of
marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
but reserved their right to appeal the district court’s ruling
denying their motions to suppress. We affirm the district court’s
denial of the motions to suppress.
I.
The following evidence was found by the magistrate judge and
district court concerning the stop. Border Patrol Agent Harris
Clanton, who had over 23 years experience at the Alpine Station,
testified that he had been involved in hundreds of cases involving
illegal aliens and drug smuggling. He explained that the Alpine
Station is responsible for patrolling Highway 385 that runs to and
from Big Bend National Park. He stated that there are numerous
2
places in the southern border of the Alpine patrol area where drugs
or illegal aliens can be smuggled across the river without being
detected.
Clanton testified that Highways 385 and 118 are continually
used to transport illegal aliens and contraband north into other
areas of the state. He testified that there are permanently
established checkpoints on both highways, but that during the prior
year, the checkpoint at Highway 118 had been open 24 hours a day,
five or six days a week, while the checkpoint at Highway 385 had
been open only 12 to 14 hours a day. Clanton testified that
smugglers usually know if a particular checkpoint is open or closed
and will go through when they know it is closed.
On the night of the arrest, Clanton and another agent, George
Lopez, were observing traffic on Highway 385 from inside the closed
checkpoint.1 Clanton testified that he was familiar with the
vehicles of the people who lived in the area and reported that the
locals generally do not drive on the road in the middle of the
night. He testified that it is a two-hour drive from the
headquarters at Big Bend Park to the checkpoint on Highway 385 and
that tourists only occasionally leave the park and drive the
highway late at night.
The Marfa Sector Communications Officer notified Clanton
1
Although the agents were present, the checkpoint was
apparently closed because of a government policy or regulation
that requires three agents to be present before a checkpoint can
be open.
3
at 1:17 A.M. that several sensors had been activated indicating
that a northbound vehicle was approaching their checkpoint.
Sensors are electronic devices which detect vehicles as they travel
the roadway. Clanton reported that one of the activated sensors
was located within fifty miles of the border. Based on the time
span between sensor hits and his experience, Clanton believed that
the same vehicle activated the different sensors.
Clanton and Agent Lopez stepped outside the checkpoint to
a lighted area and were standing there as Sanchez and Borjon drove
by in a 1998 Dodge Durango. The vehicle was not familiar to the
agents, and it was not carrying a trailer or anything that
indicated that it was a tourist vehicle. Clanton testified that in
his experience sports utility vehicles, like the Durango, had been
used to smuggle illegal aliens.
As the vehicle drove past, the passenger looked at the agents
and continued turning his head back “like he was exceptionally
interested in the fact that [the agents] were there,” according to
Clanton. The agents decided to follow the vehicle to obtain its
registration. Clanton testified that he stayed close behind the
vehicle while he was getting its license number, and the vehicle
continued to travel at 70 m.p.h. even through an “S” curve in the
road. After he obtained the license number and backed away from
the vehicle, the Durango decelerated to about 45 m.p.h. and
continued at that speed for about a mile and a half. When they
got to Marathon, the vehicle turned right onto Highway 90 and
4
headed east toward Sanderson.
Clanton received a communication that the vehicle was
registered to a woman in Midland, Texas, which was known to be
a “hub for aliens and narcotics being transported further out of
[the] area,” according to Clanton. Clanton found it strange that
the vehicle did not take the turn-off that would have been the most
direct route to Midland, and decided to make an immigration check.
Clanton caught up with the vehicle and activated his overhead
lights, and the vehicle pulled over to the right-hand side of the
road. As he approached the vehicle, he could not see inside
because the Durango had tinted windows. He shined his flashlight
into the window and could see something was blocking the view from
the rear of the vehicle. As Clanton moved closer, he could see
that there were two burlap bags on the back seat, and he could see
taped rolled bundles through the openings in the bags. He realized
that it was marijuana and approached the driver.
Clanton asked the occupants what they were doing with the
marijuana and the driver did not respond, but the passenger said it
was “weed.” The agents placed both individuals under arrest and
brought the vehicle and substance back to the Alpine Station. The
substance field tested positive for marijuana. The total weight of
the marijuana seized was 295.12 pounds.
Clanton testified that he made the stop because of several
factors. He believed that the sensor hits showed that the vehicle
came from the international border area. Clanton testified that it
5
was not unusual for a passenger to look at the agents as the
passenger’s vehicle passed but he found the duration of the
passenger’s look in this circumstance to be unusual. Based on the
sensors and the passenger’s conduct he decided to check the
vehicle’s registration. Clanton decided to make the stop after he
learned that the vehicle was registered in Midland, and the vehicle
did not make the turn that was the most direct route to that city.
Clanton testified that the stop was also made based on the time of
night, the notoriety of the road for illegal activity, and the
behavior of the driver and passenger. Clanton stated that
generally about half of his nighttime stops result in arrests.
Clanton also testified that sports utility vehicles are often used
by tourists but also by smugglers and this vehicle did not appear
to be a tourist vehicle.
II.
The magistrate judge considered Agent Clanton’s substantial
experience detecting illegal alien and drug activity, the sensor
alerts indicating that the vehicle originated its journey at the
border and was traveling north on Highway 385, the time of night,
the notoriety of the highway as a drug smuggling path, the
unfamiliarity of the vehicle to the agent, the behavior of the
driver and passenger, and the vehicle’s route, and found these
factors gave the agents reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The
magistrate judge determined that the presence of contraband in
6
plain view and the passenger’s statement gave the officers probable
cause to arrest the defendants and seize the contraband. The
magistrate judge recommended that the motions to suppress be
denied.
The defendants filed objections to the recommendation. The
district court determined that the defendants had not presented any
evidence contradicting Agent Clanton’s testimony and that the
magistrate judge’s finding that the agent was credible was not
contradicted by anything in the record. The district court relied
on the evidence of the vehicle’s traveling within fifty miles of
the border and the other factors cited by the magistrate judge and
determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances, there
were sufficient facts to justify a reasonable suspicion to make the
stop. The district court denied the motions to suppress.
Sanchez was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 70 months,
to be followed by a four-year term of probation. Borjon was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 60 months, to be followed by
a four-year term of supervised release. After sentencing, Sanchez
filed a timely notice of appeal. Borjon filed a motion to file an
out of time appeal, and the district court granted the motion.
On appeal Sanchez argues that a reasonable suspicion for an
investigatory stop cannot be based on an unparticularized “hunch”
and that there were no articulable facts sufficient to justify the
stop. Borjon argues that the factors relied upon by the agent were
not specific to their vehicle and would allow agents to stop every
7
vehicle traveling that road that the agent did not recognize as a
local vehicle. The government argues that the totality of the
circumstances gave rise to articulable facts justifying the stop
and that the district court was correct in not granting the motions
to suppress.
III.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, the
district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and
its legal conclusions, including whether there was a reasonable
suspicion for the stop, are reviewed de novo. United States v.
Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in
light of the record as a whole. Id. The evidence presented at
a suppression hearing must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the prevailing party. Id. (quotation and citation omitted).
“A border patrol agent conducting a roving patrol may make
a temporary investigative stop of a vehicle only if the agent is
aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational
inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that
the vehicle’s occupant is engaged in criminal activity.” Id. The
Government has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the investigatory stop was constitutional. United
States v. Guerrero-Barajas, 240 F.3d 428, 432 (5th Cir. 2001).
As both the magistrate judge and district court noted, several
8
factors may be considered in determining whether the agent had
reasonable suspicion justifying the stop. Id. These factors
include, but are not limited to, 1) the character of the area in
which the vehicle is observed; 2) its proximity to the border;
3) the patterns of traffic on that road; 4) the agent’s previous
experience with alien smuggling; 5) information about recent
crossings or other illegal activity in that area; 6) the driver’s
behavior, such as erratic driving; 7) the characteristics of the
vehicle involved and whether it appears to be heavily loaded;
8) the number of passengers and their behavior; and 9) whether the
occupants have characteristics of persons living outside the United
States. Id. at 432-33; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.
873, 884-85 (1975). No single factor determines the issue; the
case must be examined based on the totality of the circumstances
known to the agent when the stop was made and the agent’s
experience in evaluating such circumstances. Guerrero-Barajas,
240 F.3d at 433. In the present case, although not all the factors
indicate that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Sanchez
and Borjon, most of the factors indicate the agents could
articulate facts and rational inferences based on those facts that
lead to the constitutionally permissible stop of Sanchez and
Borjon.
First and importantly, whether the agents had reason to
believe that the vehicle in question has recently crossed the
border is one of the vital elements in determining whether there
9
was reasonable suspicion for the stop. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d at 428.
If the vehicle is traveling more than fifty miles from the border,
it is viewed as being too far away to raise an inference that it
originated its journey there. Id. If the vehicle is first
observed within fifty miles of the border, but stopped at a further
point, the proximity element is satisfied. Id. The activation of
sensors by the vehicle near the border supports a finding that the
vehicle crossed over the border. Id. Sensor hits may be
supportive of reasonable suspicion in cases where the type of
vehicle stopped was the same as the vehicle detected by the sensor.
United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 723 (5th Cir. 1994).
Agent Clanton was not at liberty to testify as to the precise
location of the sensors that were activated but could testify that
some of the sensors were within fifty miles of the border. Based
on the timing of the sensor alerts and that fact that the Durango
was the only vehicle seen traveling the road, it can be inferred
that Sanchez and Borjon came from the border. See United States v.
Aguirre-Valenzuela, 700 F.2d 161, 163 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)
(finding reasonable suspicion where “the timing of the sensor
alerts and the arrival of the Appellant’s car at the agents’
location certainly were coincident enough to allow a reasonable
inference that this was the car which had hit the sensors”).
Second and also significant in this case, the level of
experience of the agent should be a factor in determining whether
reasonable suspicion exists. United States v. Aldaco, 168 F.3d
10
148, 151 (5th Cir. 1999). Agent Clanton had twenty-three years of
experience and had been assigned to the Alpine Station the entire
time. Agent George Lopez, who was working with him, had less than
a year of experience. Clanton’s substantial experience weighs in
favor of the reasonable suspicion finding.
Additionally, other factors may support reasonable suspicion.
A driver’s behavior may support a reasonable suspicion, although
noticeable deceleration does may not indicate much. United States
v. Jones, 149 F.3d 364, 370 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Diaz,
977 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1992). In this case both the
magistrate judge and district court found that the driver acted
unusual. A passenger’s behavior in looking at an officer can be
given only little weight. United States v. Moreno-Chapparro,
180 F.3d 629, 632 (5th Cir. 1998). Here the lower courts
emphasized the extended look the passenger gave the agents. The
road’s reputation as a smuggling route adds to the reasonableness
of the suspicion. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d at 429. The stop occurred
on a known smuggling route around 2:00 A.M. and at a time when the
checkpoint on Highway 118 was known to be open. See United States
v. Villalobos, 161 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that
the time of day that the vehicle is traveling “is a permissible
consideration”). Further, the record also indicates that during
the two week time period before this stop only 3 or 4 vehicles had
passed this checkpoint at this time of the day. Agent Clanton did
not recognize the Durango as belonging to a local and the Durango,
11
unlike the usual tourist vehicles, was not pulling any recreational
equipment. And Clanton testified that he had previously been
involved in cases in which the type of vehicle involved in this
case had been used to transport aliens.
Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, both
the magistrate judge and district court found that reasonable
suspicion existed to make the stop and we agree.
IV.
Having carefully reviewed the record of this case, the
parties’ respective briefing and arguments, for the reasons set
forth above and essentially for the reasons given by both the
magistrate judge and district court, the denial of Sanchez’s and
Borjon’s motions to suppress is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
12