FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30122
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00055-RSL-4
v.
MEMORANDUM *
RUBEN RAMIREZ-VENTURA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: SILVERMAN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,
District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for
the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Defendant Ruben Ramirez-Ventura appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine, challenging the district court’s denial of his suppression motion.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, United States v.
Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002), and review a district court’s factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th
Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See United
States v. Miller, 822 F.2d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 1987).
All parties agree that, because Ramirez was speeding, the troopers had an
independent valid basis to conduct a pretextual traffic stop, see Whren v. United
States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-13 (1996), and that the troopers could ask questions
unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop, so long as the questioning did “not
prolong an initially lawful stop.” United States v. Turvin, 517 F.3d 1097, 1100
(9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, the troopers could
prolong the traffic stop if they had reasonable suspicion to justify their questioning.
United States v. Mendez, 476 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007).
The “collective knowledge” doctrine should have been applied in this case.
This doctrine “allows courts to impute police officers’ collective knowledge to the
officer conducting a stop, search, or arrest.” See United States v. Villasenor, 608
2
F.3d 467, 475 (9th Cir. 2010). Where one officer knows facts constituting
reasonable suspicion, “and he communicates an appropriate order or request,
another officer may conduct a warrantless stop” without having been told the facts
justifying the suspicion. See United States v. Ramirez, 473 F.3d 1026, 1036-37
(9th Cir. 2007). Because the DEA communicated with the Oregon troopers, the
doctrine applies to “aggregate the facts known to each of the officers involved,”
regardless of whether the information giving rise to probable cause was actually
communicated to the troopers. Id. at 1032; see also United States v. Sutton, 794
F.2d 1415, 1426 (9th Cir. 1986).
Applying the collective knowledge doctrine, the DEA and troopers had
knowledge that: (1) in a previous investigation, an informant had reported that his
“boss,” later identified as Ramirez, drove a tan Chevy Tahoe that had a secret
compartment in its seat for drugs; (2) Ramirez met with an informant before and
after a drug transaction with an undercover officer; (3) Ramirez was seen driving
to the same spot as another cocaine distributor (and informant) drove to meet his
supplier; (4) Ramirez and his co-defendant drove the Tahoe from Washington to
California, met briefly with a man at a hotel, and were seen leaving the hotel with
packages in hand traveling back to Washington; and (5) the troopers were faced
with an “overwhelming scent of air freshener” emanating from the Tahoe. These
3
facts, taken together, easily establish reasonable suspicion to prolong Ramirez’s
detention for further investigation.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
4