United States v. Holguin-Chavez

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 20, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-2255
v. (D. of NM)
JUAN ALBERTO HOLGUIN- (D.C. No. CR-06-2216-RB)
CHAVEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in
the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The cause was therefore ordered submitted without oral argument on April 24,
2008.
The question presented in this case is whether New Mexico border patrol
officers had reasonable suspicion to stop a pickup truck driven by Mr. Holguin-
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Chavez. Holguin-Chavez was stopped near Deming, New Mexico after police
learned a white pickup truck he was driving was wanted in connection with an
investigation into human trafficking. Holguin-Chavez subsequently incriminated
himself in a scheme to smuggle illegal aliens from Mexico to the United States.
The district court denied his motion to suppress evidence arising from the traffic
stop. He argues on appeal the police violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping
him without sufficient justification.
We have carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, the district
court’s order and the applicable law. We affirm for substantially the same
reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum opinion and order denying
Holguin-Chavez’s motion to suppress. The district court’s order thoroughly and
accurately describes the proper legal standards and articulates the reasons for its
conclusions, and is attached hereto as the decision of this court.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-2-
Attachment
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) NO. CR 06-2216 RB
)
JUAN ALBERTO HOLGUIN-CHAVEZ, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant’s (“Mr. Holguin-Chavez’s”)
Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 43), filed on January 17, 2007. On February 1, 2007,
I held a hearing, received evidence, and heard arguments. Being otherwise fully advised,
I deny the motion.
I. Facts.
On July 20, 2006, at about 11:00 a.m., United States Border Patrol Agent Jaime
Loera and Agent Juan Holguin were on roving patrol duty, traveling east on New Mexico
State Road 9, about three miles north of the international border, and 25 miles west of
Columbus, New Mexico. State Road 9 is a paved, two-lane road that runs generally east
to west. The agents, in full uniform in a marked Border Patrol vehicle, were approaching
Hermanas Road, a sparsely-traveled dirt road that runs north/south from State Road 9 to
the Deming, New Mexico area.
The area is well-known for drug and alien smuggling apprehensions. In the prior
six-month period, Agent Loera had been involved in many apprehensions in the immediate
area. Indeed, earlier that same morning, Agent Loera and Agent Holguin had assisted with
an alien smuggling apprehension. The area is deserted and brushy. Very limited vehicle
traffic consists of local ranchers, Border Patrol agents, illegal vehicle intrusions from
across the border, and occasional interstate travelers taking a short cut between Texas and
Southeastern Arizona. Agent Loera is familiar with the vehicles driven by local ranchers
and he encounters illegal vehicle intrusions on a daily basis.
As the agents prepared to turn left from State Road 9 onto Hermanas Road, Agent
Loera observed two pickup trucks traveling west on State Road 9. Based on the close
proximity of the trucks to each other and the direction they were headed, Agent Loera
surmised that the trucks were traveling in tandem and headed for Arizona. Agent Loera
did not believe that the trucks would turn onto Hermanas Road, and head north toward
Deming, because the trucks were coming from Columbus. The most direct route between
Columbus and Deming was State Road 11, a paved road with a Border Patrol checkpoint.
Alien smugglers commonly use Hermanas Road to avoid the Border Patrol checkpoint on
State Road 11 between Columbus and Deming.
The first truck was an older-model white pickup. The second truck was an older-
model red pickup. Agent Loera did not recognize the trucks as local vehicles because he
knew that the ranchers in the immediate area drove newer trucks with dual tires.
The agents and the white truck arrived at Hermanas Road at about the same time.
The agents waited before turning left, expecting the white truck and the red truck to pass
them and proceed west on State Road 9. Instead, the white truck turned right onto
-4-
Hermanas Road, drove a short distance and paused until the red truck turned onto
Hermanas Road. The white truck then sped up and proceeded north on Hermanas Road.
After it turned right onto Hermanas Road, the red truck stopped.
The agents turned onto Hermanas Road, stopped, and approached the red truck on
foot to ascertain whether the driver needed assistance. Agent Loera did not suspect
criminal activity was afoot when he approached the red truck. Travelers often become lost
in the area and ask agents for directions. As the agents approached the red truck on foot,
they observed, in the bed of the truck, a number of people partially covered by a blue
plastic tarp.
Agent Loera approached the driver of the red truck, who identified himself as David
Gustavo Quintana-Armendariz, the co-defendant in this case. Agent Loera determined that
Mr. Quintana-Armendariz was a citizen of Mexico in the United States illegally. Agent
Holguin questioned the thirteen people in the bed of the truck. They were all citizens of
Mexico illegally present in the United States.
Agent Loera arrested Mr. Quintana-Armendariz and read him his Miranda rights.
Agent Loera asked Mr. Quintana-Armendariz about the white truck. Mr. Quintana-
Armendariz stated that he was instructed to follow the white truck to Deming. Agent
Loera surmised that the white truck was involved in the alien-smuggling scheme because
he commonly encounters schemes where two vehicles are used to smuggle aliens.
About 20 minutes after Agent Loera observed the white truck proceed north on
Hermanas Road, Agent Loera issued on the Border Patrol radio system a “be on the
lookout” (“BOLO”) for an older-model, early 1990s era, white pickup truck northbound
on Hermanas Road. The usual speed of traffic on the dirt portion of Hermanas Road is
-5-
about 40 miles per hour. About five minutes after Agent Loera issued the BOLO, at about
11:25 a.m., Agent Brawley stated on the radio that he had stopped a truck matching the
description of the white truck at about mile marker 13 on Hermanas Road, i.e., about 13
miles north of State Road 9.
Agent Daniel Galvan had arrived to assist with the illegal aliens apprehended in the
bed of the red truck. New Mexico State Police Officers were summoned to take custody
of the red truck. Agent Loera and Agent Holguin drove Mr. Quintana-Armendariz to mile
marker 13 on Hermanas Road, the site where Agent Brawley had stopped the white truck.
They arrived at about 11:45 a.m.
Agent Loera asked Mr. Quintana-Armendariz if the white truck was the one he had
been directed to follow. Mr. Quintana-Armendariz confirmed that the truck stopped by
Agent Brawley was the same white truck that Mr. Quintana-Armendariz had followed.
Agent Loera and Agent Holguin also identified the stopped truck as the same white truck
they observed on State Road 9 and Hermanas Road driving in tandem with the red truck.
Agent Brawley arrested the driver of the white truck, who was Mr. Holguin-Chavez, and
read him his Miranda rights at about 11:50 a.m. The agents transported Mr. Holguin-
Chavez and Mr. Quintana-Armendariz to the Deming Border Patrol station.
After they arrived at the Deming Border Patrol station, at 12:28 p.m., Agent Galvan
again read Mr. Holguin-Chavez his rights and Mr. Holguin-Chavez executed an I-214 form.
(Gov. Ex. 2.) Mr. Holguin-Chavez understood his rights and voluntarily agreed to make
a statement. The interview was calm. Mr. Holguin-Chavez did not ask for counsel or to
use the telephone. Mr. Holguin-Chavez voluntarily gave a statement that implicated him
in the alien smuggling scheme.
-6-
II. Discussion.
Mr. Holguin-Chavez argues that the stop of the white truck was not justified by
reasonable suspicion and the scope of the detention was unreasonable. The Government
responds that the stop was supported by probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the
Government. U.S. Const. amend. IV. A traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment
when probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists. United States v. Valenzuela, 365 F.3d
892, 896-97 (10th Cir.2004) (probable cause standard); United States v. Gandara-Salinas,
327 F.3d 1127, 1129 (10th Cir.2003) (reasonable suspicion standard).
Agent Brawley had reasonable suspicion to stop the white truck. The following
factors are relevant to the determination of whether an immigration stop is supported by
reasonable suspicion:
(1) characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is
encountered; (2) the proximity of the area to the border; (3) the
usual patterns of traffic on the particular road; (4) the previous
experience of the agent with alien traffic; (5) information
about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) the
driver's behavior, including any obvious attempts to evade
officers; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as a station wagon
with concealed compartments; and (8) the appearance that the
vehicle is heavily loaded.
Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d at 1129-30 (citing United States v. Monsivais, 907 F.2d 987,
989-90 (1990) and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884-85 (1975)); see also
United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes, 2007 WL 211870 (Jan. 29, 2007) (unpublished).
In evaluating these factors, a court may not employ a “divide-and-conquer”
approach by evaluating and rejecting each factor in isolation. United States v. Arvizu, 534
U.S. 266, 277 (2002). The ultimate determination of reasonable suspicion depends upon
-7-
the totality of the circumstances. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d at 1130. A border patrol
officer may use his experience and training in detecting illegal entry and smuggling when
assessing these factors. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d at 1129. A court must defer to the
officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions. United States v.
De la Cruz-Tapia, 162 F.3d 1275, 1277-78 (10th Cir.1998).
Less than five minutes after he heard the BOLO, Agent Brawley encountered a
vehicle matching the description given by Agent Loera. The approximate 25 minutes
elapsed between the time Agent Loera and Agent Holguin observed the white truck head
north on Hermanas Road and the stop of the white truck at mile marker 13 was consistent
with thirteen miles traveled on Hermanas Road. The white truck had been positively
identified in the BOLO as a vehicle involved in alien smuggling. Hermanas Road runs
north/south from the international border area and has little traffic. The point where the
white truck was encountered lies less than twenty miles from the international border. The
white truck was different than the type driven by local ranchers. Mr. Holguin-Chavez
invites the Court to evaluate and reject each factor in isolation; an approach rejected by
Arvizu. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the stop of the white truck was
supported by reasonable suspicion.
Agent Brawley had probable cause to arrest Mr. Holguin-Chavez after the truck was
positively identified. “Probable cause to arrest exists only when the ‘facts and
circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably
trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable
caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.’” Valenzuela, 365
F.3d at 896 (quoting United States v. Edwards, 242 F.3d 928, 934 (10th Cir.2001)).
-8-
Probable cause is measured against an objective standard; the “ ‘primary concern is
whether a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the
defendant based on the information possessed by the arresting officer.’ ” United States v.
Soto, 375 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir.2004) (quoting Valenzuela, 365 F.3d at 896-97).
The Supreme Court has made the following distinction between reasonable suspicion
and probable cause:
Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than
probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion
can be established with information that is different in quantity
or content than that required to establish probable cause, but
also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from
information that is less reliable than that required to show
probable cause.
Valenzuela, 365 F.3d at 896 (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990)).
Agent Brawley had reasonable suspicion to stop the white truck because it matched
the description relayed by Agent Loera and it was northbound on Hermanas Road. Mr.
Quintana-Armendariz, Agent Loera and Agent Holguin positively identified the white truck
as the vehicle that they observed driving in tandem with the red truck that contained illegal
aliens. Mr. Holguin-Chavez was the driver and sole occupant of the white truck. After the
white truck was positively identified, Agent Brawley had probable cause to arrest Mr.
Holguin-Chavez.
At the hearing, Mr. Holguin-Chavez argued that the investigative detention
exceeded the scope of the stop. Investigative detention of a vehicle and its occupants must
be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop. United States
v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir.2006). A Border Patrol agent who stops a
vehicle based on a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is involved in the transport of
-9-
illegal aliens may question the vehicle's occupants about their citizenship and their travel
route, and may ascertain whether other individuals are inside. Id. The occupant of a
vehicle may be detained further if, during the course of a stop, the Border Patrol agent
develops an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion that the occupant is engaged
in some other illegal activity. Id.When he stopped the white truck, Agent Brawley had reasonable suspicion that it
was engaged in illegal activity because it matched the description in the BOLO and it was
traveling in the same direction on Hermanas Road as the white truck observed by Agent
Loera and Agent Holguin. About twenty minutes after the stop, Mr. Quintana-Armendariz,
Agent Loera, and Agent Holguin positively identified the white truck as the vehicle
involved in the alien-smuggling scheme. Agent Brawley placed Mr. Holguin-Chavez under
arrest and read him his rights within twenty-five minutes of the stop. By 12:28 pm., Mr.
Holguin-Chavez had been transported to the Deming station, where Agent Galvan again
read him his rights. Mr. Holguin-Chavez gave an incriminating statement. No more than
one hour and five minutes elapsed between the stop of the white truck and the interview
with Agent Galvan. The detention was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
that justified the stop. The investigative detention did not exceed the scope of the stop.
III. Conclusion.
The actions of the Border Patrol agents did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
WHEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 43), filed
on January 17, 2007, is DENIED.
-10-
________
___________________________
ROBERT C. BRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-11-