United States v. Ruiz

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50937
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ANDREW RUIZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-99-CR-116-1
--------------------
June 28, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andrew Ruiz appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm.
A determination that reasonable suspicion existed to stop a
vehicle is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.
See United States v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 857, 864 (5th Cir. 1998).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-50937
-2-
Findings of fact made in this context are reviewed for clear
error. Id. at 864-65. The evidence presented at a hearing on a
motion to suppress is viewed in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party, in this case, the government. Id. at 865. The
factors that a Border Patrol agent may consider in determining
whether reasonable suspicion exists to stop a vehicle are well
settled, see Nichols, 142 F.3d at 865, and we do not repeat them
here.
At the time Border Patrol Agent Rodney Hall stopped Ruiz,
Hall was aware that a vehicle had tripped a sensor some 45 miles
north of the border on Highway 67. Ruiz’s vehicle arrived at a
checkpoint 54 miles north of the border in approximately the time
it took Hall to arrive at the same checkpoint from Marfa, four
miles to the north. Given this timing and the fact that traffic
was sparse at that time, Hall reasonably could infer that Ruiz’s
vehicle originated at the border. See United States v. Orozco,
191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir. 1999).
Highway 67 is a known smuggling route, see United States v.
Villalobos, 161 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1998), a point which Ruiz
conceded both in the district court and on appeal. Although
Agent Hall did not specifically testify that Highway 67 has a
reputation as a smuggling conduit, his overall testimony coupled
with the placement of both a sensor and a checkpoint on Highway
67 indicate that the Border Patrol and Agent Hall consider
Highway 67 to be a smuggling route.
Contrary to Ruiz’s suggestion, it is unlikely, that a camper
would be utilizing that route between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. to leave
No. 99-50937
-3-
Big Bend National Park. See id. Ruiz correctly notes that there
are other towns in the area and that other vehicles may use
Highway 67 for legitimate purposes; however, that does not
diminish the fact that Ruiz was traveling near the border on a
road that leads directly into Mexico. See id.
Hall’s testimony that the truck had tinted windows, appeared
to be riding low, and carried a load that could conceal aliens or
contraband further supports a finding of reasonable suspicion, as
does Ruiz’s unusually long stop at the intersection. See e.g.,
Orozco, 191 F.3d at 578 (weighted-down appearance of vehicle is a
factor agent may consider); Nichols, 142 F.3d at 868 (agent could
consider fact that vehicle paused for an unusually long time at
intersection). Although, as Ruiz contends, each of these facts
alone would not support a finding of reasonable suspicion, the
individual factors cannot be examined in a vacuum. Rather, we
look to the totality of the circumstances. See United States v.
Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 1999). Behavior that
may be construed as innocent may nevertheless support a finding
of reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Gomez, 776 F.2d
542, 548 (5th Cir. 1985). In addition, Hall testified that the
truck was registered in Odessa, which he characterized as a known
staging point for drug and alien smuggling. This further
supported his suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.
Finally, we note that the testimony established that Agent
Hall had worked with the Border Patrol for seven years, more than
three of which were spent in Marfa. Hall was clearly familiar
with the area and with smuggling practices. When we view the
No. 99-50937
-4-
facts known to Agent Hall in light of his evident experience, we
conclude that the district court properly determined that
reasonable suspicion existed to justify the stop.
AFFIRMED.