United States v. Oscar Vasquez Perez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 04 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10249
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-01439-SPL-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OSCAR VASQUEZ PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, NOONAN, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Vasquez Perez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence obtained from a Border Patrol stop. As the facts are known to
the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Border Patrol officer needed only reasonable suspicion to stop Vasquez
Perez and to conduct a limited inquiry into the immigration status of his car’s
occupants. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975); United
States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
“Reasonable suspicion is defined as a particularized and objective basis for
suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” Valdes-Vega, 738
F.3d at 1078 (internal quotation marks omitted). The standard “is not a particularly
high threshold to reach,” and although a mere hunch will not suffice, “‘the
likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable
cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence
standard.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002)).
Such standard is satisfied in view of the totality of the circumstances in this
case. Vasquez Perez drove through Dome Valley—an area close to the U.S. border
and known for alien smuggling—in a car that the officer noted was unusual for the
area, was poorly suited for driving on the area’s rough terrain, and was visibly
sagging in the rear. The officer also observed that one of Vasquez Perez’s
passengers was dressed unusually for work in the area, and that she seemed
preoccupied with the sight of the officer’s marked patrol car, despite the daily
presence of Border Patrol in the area. Moreover, as the officer followed Vasquez
2
Perez, he observed Vasquez Perez proceed along a route that was unusual for
traffic in the area, that included a section of unpaved road (in a car ill-equipped to
handle such roads), and that was consistent with an effort to avoid a known Border
Patrol checkpoint along a nearby highway. Even if none of these individual facts
would alone establish reasonable suspicion, the unique combination of all
circumstances taken together led the officer reasonably to suspect that Vasquez
Perez was engaged in transporting illegal aliens. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274–78;
Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1078–81.
The district court did not err in denying Vasquez Perez’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
3