F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUL 31 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 01-2023
RIGOBERTO VASQUEZ-
CASTILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D. Ct. No. CR-00-687-BB)
Mario A. Esparza, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for Appellant.
David N. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney (Norman C. Bay, United
States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Appellee.
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, POLITZ, * and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge.
Mr. Vasquez-Castillo appeals the district court’s order denying his motion
Honorable Henry A. Politz, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of
*
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
to suppress physical evidence. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirm.
I. Background
The New Mexico Motor Transportation Division operates a permanent port
of entry on Interstate 40 near San Jon, New Mexico, approximately fifteen miles
from the Texas-New Mexico border. New Mexico law requires all commercial
carriers entering or leaving New Mexico to stop at all ports of entry. N.M. Stat.
Ann. § 65-5-1(A). The state authorizes personnel assigned to the ports of entry
to inspect commercial vehicles and their documentation to determine whether the
vehicles, drivers, and cargo are in compliance with state laws regarding public
safety, health, and welfare. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 65-5-1.
The San Jon port of entry has a primary and secondary inspection area,
known respectively as the “driveway” and “inspection bay.” Commercial carriers
displaying a current CVSA inspection decal 1 are routinely subject to only a brief
1
A CVSA inspection decal signifies that a vehicle has passed an inspection
using the criteria established by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, “a non-
profit organization of federal, state, and provincial government agencies and
representatives from private industry in the United States, Canada and Mexico
dedicated to improving commercial vehicle safety.”
http://www.cvsa.org/About_Us/about_us.html (last modified June 25, 2001).
Each decal is good for three months. http://www.cvsa.org/
Inspections/CVSA_Decals/cvsa_decals.html (last modified June 25, 2001).
(continued...)
-2-
inspection at the driveway. But if the commercial carrier does not display a
current CVSA inspection decal, port of entry personnel routinely direct it to an
inspection bay for a more thorough inspection. Inspectors conduct three levels of
inspections at the inspection bays. Of these, Level 1 is the most thorough.
At about 1:30 p.m. on May 2, 2000, Appellant Rigoberto Vasquez-Castillo
drove a 1992 International cab-over truck hauling a trailer into the eastbound
side of the San Jon port of entry. A passenger accompanied him. Officer Taylor,
one of the agents on duty, noticed that Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s truck did not have
a CVSA decal. He also noticed that Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s logbook was not
current. He further observed some irregularities with Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s bill
of lading. The amount of cargo, 10,000 pounds, seemed to him to be very small
for a commercial carrier. The logbook also showed that the truck had made three
previous stops, but Mr. Vasquez-Castillo presented only one bill of lading, rather
than one for each stop as is customary. Because of the lack of a CVSA decal and
the other irregularities, Officer Taylor directed Mr. Vasquez-Castillo to the
inspection bay for a Level 1 safety inspection.
At the inspection bay, Inspector Pacheco conducted the inspection. After
inspecting the outside of the truck and trailer, he inspected the undercarriage and
1
(...continued)
Inspectors at the New Mexico ports of entry, like their counterparts in 48 states,
follow the CVSA guidelines.
-3-
brakes. When Inspector Pacheco had finished, Officer Taylor discussed with him
the irregularities regarding Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s log book and bill of lading.
They then decided to inspect the blocking and bracing and cargo. 2
After Mr. Vasquez-Castillo opened the trailer, Inspector Pacheco entered
the trailer. He observed three pallets with shrink-wrapped boxes lying unsecured,
along with a stack of empty pallets near the front of the trailer. He considered
this an unusually small amount of cargo for a truck of that size. As he proceeded
forward in the trailer he detected the odor of raw marijuana. He also noticed a
crack in the wall of the trailer, through which he could see a space between the
inner wall and outer hull of the trailer. He further noticed that the front wall of
the trailer had footprints on it with the toe facing down, was exceptionally clean,
and had shiny new siderails while the rest of the trailer and truck was fairly old.
Finally, he noticed an air vent in the trailer that appeared to lead to nowhere.
Inspector Pacheco asked Mr. Vasquez-Castillo to join him at the front of
the trailer so he could explain whether the front of the trailer had been broken.
Mr. Vasquez-Castillo stated that he had owned the trailer for only five months
and that it was in the same condition as when he bought it. Inspector Pacheco
then asked for Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s permission to search behind the wall. Mr.
“Blocking and bracing” refers to the securing of cargo so that it does not
2
move or shift during transit. See 49 C.F.R. § 393.104.
-4-
Vasquez-Castillo signed a consent to the search. He also loaned Inspector
Pacheco his cordless drill to remove the braces from the wall.
Once he had opened the wall, Inspector Pacheco found wrapped bundles
containing over 800 pounds of marijuana concealed in the compartment. Mr.
Vasquez-Castillo was placed under arrest at that time. He then made a number of
inculpatory statements, saying that it was all his fault and making other
admissions.
Mr. Vasquez-Castillo moved to suppress the marijuana discovered in the
trailer and his subsequent statements. The district court denied his motion. Mr.
Vasquez-Castillo then entered into a conditional plea agreement, reserving the
right to withdraw his guilty plea if the district court’s order is reversed on appeal.
He was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment to be followed by four years of
supervised release. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
“In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the factual
findings of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous. The evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination. The
ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is a
question of law which is reviewed de novo.” United States v. West, 219 F.3d
-5-
1171, 1176 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Mr. Vasquez-Castillo argues that Inspector Pacheco’s search of the trailer
went beyond the permissible scope of safety inspection and was, therefore, a
violation of the Fourth Amendment. We find this argument to be without merit.
A. Closely Regulated Industry
We have previously held that commercial trucking is an industry closely
regulated by both federal and state governments. United States v. Burch, 153
F.3d 1140, 1141-43 (10th Cir. 1998); V-1 Oil Co. v. Means, 94 F.3d 1420, 1426
(10th Cir. 1996); accord United States v. Fort, 248 F.3d 475, 480 (5th Cir.
2001); United States v. Dominguez-Prieto, 923 F.2d 464, 468 (6th Cir. 1991);
New Mexico v. Jutte, 968 P.2d 334, 338 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). Because it is a
closely regulated industry, we apply the test articulated in New York v. Burger ,
482 U.S. 691 (1987).
In Burger , the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining
whether a warrantless inspection of a closely regulated industry violates the
Fourth Amendment:
First, there must be a substantial government interest that informs
the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made.
Second, the warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the
regulatory scheme. . . . Finally, the statute’s inspection program, in
terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, must provide
a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.
-6-
Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-03 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
1. Substantial Government Interest
We find that the safety inspections of commercial carriers satisfy the first
prong of the Burger test. “The state clearly has a substantial interest in
regulating [commercial carriers] to protect public safety on the highways.”
Means, 94 F.3d at 1426; accord Fort, 248 F.3d at 480; Dominguez-Prieto, 923
F.2d at 468.
2. Necessary to Further the Regulatory Scheme
While we have not squarely answered the question of whether routine
safety inspections are necessary to further the regulatory scheme governing
commercial carriers, two of our sister circuits have. We agree with the Fifth and
Sixth Circuits that the factors justifying the warrantless inspections of
commercial carriers are “more compelling than those present in Burger ” because
commercial carriers, unlike the automobile junkyards considered in Burger , “pass
quickly through states and out of the jurisdiction of the enforcement agencies.”
Dominguez-Prieto, 923 F.2d at 469; accord Fort, 248 F.3d at 481; see also
Means, 94 F.3d at 1426 (“It could reasonably be concluded that random truck
safety inspections are necessary to further that interest.”). Thus, we find that the
-7-
safety inspections presently under consideration satisfy the second prong of the
Burger test.
3. Adequate Substitute for a Warrant
To satisfy this requirement, a regulation must sufficiently inform the
commercial property owner that his property will be subject to periodic
inspections undertaken for specific purposes, must notify owners as to who is
authorized to conduct an inspection, and must limit the discretion of inspectors in
time, place, and scope. Burger, 482 U.S. at 701-03; accord Means, 94 F.3d at
1425.
We find that the regulatory scheme governing commercial carriers provides
adequate notice to owners and operators of commercial carriers that their
property will be subject to periodic inspections and adequately limits the
discretion of inspectors in place and scope. New Mexico law requires all
commercial motor vehicle carriers to “stop at every port of entry . . . for
manifesting and clearance stickers.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 65-5-1(A). The operators
of commercial motor vehicle carriers are required, upon request, to produce a
manifest containing fourteen specific items of information relating to the vehicle
and its owner, driver, and cargo. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 65-5-1(B). Inspectors at the
port of entry are permitted to verify this information and to ascertain whether the
-8-
condition of the vehicle is safe for operation on the state’s highways. N.M. Stat.
Ann. § 65-5-1(C). To determine whether the vehicle is safe, those in charge of
the port of entry are permitted to “inspect the vehicle and its contents to
determine whether all laws and all rules and regulations of the departments of
[New Mexico] with respect to public safety, health, welfare and comfort have
been fully complied with.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 65-5-1(F) (emphasis added). New
Mexico has also authorized its employees to enforce federal laws relating to
commercial motor vehicle carriers. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 65-1-9.
Along with numerous other requirements, both federal and New Mexico
regulations require proper blocking and bracing. See 49 C.F.R. § 393.104; N.M.
Admin. Code § 18.2.3.13. “Proper blocking and bracing ensures that the cargo is
secured ‘so that, when the vehicle decelerates at a rate of 20 feet per second per
second, the cargo will remain on the vehicle and will not penetrate the vehicle’s
front-end structure’ and the cargo is protected against shifting sideways in
transit.” Burch, 153 F.3d at 1142 n.2 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 393.104). We have
previously noted that “[t]o check blocking and bracing, an officer must inspect
the interior of a trailer.” Id. Thus, we find in this case, as we found in Burch ,
that “Defendant could not help but be aware that his property was subject to
periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes, including inspection of the
blocking and bracing.” Id. at 1142 (internal quotation marks omitted).
-9-
Unlike the statute considered in Burger , no time limitation is placed on the
regulatory scheme governing commercial carriers. We agree with the Sixth
Circuit, however, that “[s]uch a limitation would, of course, render the entire
inspection scheme unworkable and meaningless. Trucks operate twenty-four
hours a day and the officers must, necessarily, have the authority to conduct these
administrative inspections at any time.” Dominguez-Prieto, 923 F.2d at 470. We
therefore find that this regulatory scheme satisfies the third prong of the Burger
test.
Having found that all three prongs of the Burger test are satisfied by the
state and federal regulatory schemes governing commercial carriers, we find that
Inspector Pacheco permissibly entered Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s trailer to inspect
the blocking and bracing. He was, therefore, authorized by state and federal
regulations to be in the trailer when he detected the odor of marijuana and
observed the other aforementioned irregularities. 3
We now consider whether
Inspector Pacheco had probable cause to search the secret compartment where the
Inspector Pacheco stated that he also entered the trailer to inspect the
3
cargo. Mr. Vasquez-Castillo argues that entering the trailer to inspect the cargo
exceeded the permissible scope of the safety inspection. Because we find that
Inspector Pacheco permissibly entered the trailer to inspect the blocking and
bracing, we need not consider whether he also could have entered the trailer to
inspect the cargo.
- 10 -
marijuana was hidden. 4
B. Probable Cause to Search the Secret Compartment
Although the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s
warrant requirement is based in part on the ready mobility of
automobiles, “the justification to conduct such a warrantless search
does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it
depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each
particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its
contents would have been tampered with, during the period required
for the police to obtain a warrant.”
United States v. Anderson, 114 F.3d 1059, 1066 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261 (1982) (per curiam)). “Probable cause
to search a vehicle is established if, under the totality of the circumstances, there
is a fair probability that the car contains contraband or evidence.” United States
v. Downs, 151 F.3d 1301, 1303 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and
emphasis omitted). “The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile ‘is
defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable
cause to believe that it may be found.’” United States v. Nielsen, 9 F.3d 1487,
1491 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982)).
4
We note that Mr. Vasquez-Castillo signed a written consent to search the
secret compartment in his trailer. He argues, however, that his consent was not
voluntary under the circumstances. Because we find that Inspector Pacheco had
sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle without Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s
consent, we need not address this issue.
- 11 -
“It is well established that although probable cause to search a car may not exist
when a car is first stopped for a traffic citation, it can arise during the course of
the stop.” United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1178 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing
Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980)).
“An officer’s detection of the smell of drugs . . . in a car is entitled to
substantial weight in the probable cause analysis and can be an independently
sufficient basis for probable cause.” West, 219 F.3d at 1178; see also United
States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194, 1200 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that odor of raw
marijuana, combined with nervous behavior and vague description of travel
plans, satisfied probable cause standard). When an officer encounters the smell
of raw marijuana, there is the fair probability that the vehicle is being used to
transport marijuana “and that the marijuana has been secreted in places other than
the passenger compartment.” Downs, 151 F.3d at 1303.
Inspector Pacheco detected the odor of raw marijuana. Viewing this under
the totality of the circumstances – the unusually small amount of cargo, the
irregularities in the log book and bill of lading, the space between the inner wall
and outer hull of the trailer, the footprints on the front wall, the new appearance
of the front wall and siderails compared with the rest of the trailer, and the vent
which appeared to serve no purpose – we find that probable cause existed to
search the secret compartment in the trailer. See Dominguez-Prieto, 923 F.2d at
- 12 -
470 (holding that irregular log book entries and empty trailer contributed to
probable cause to search for contraband). Consequently, we hold that this search
did not violate Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s Fourth Amendment rights.
III. Conclusion
We find that Inspector Pacheco’s presence inside Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s
trailer was within the permissible scope of a warrantless search of the closely
regulated industry of commercial trucking. We further find that Inspector
Pacheco’s detection of the odor of raw marijuana under the totality of the
circumstances provided probable cause to search the secret compartment of the
trailer.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying suppression of
the physical evidence and Mr. Vasquez-Castillo’s subsequent statements.
- 13 -