United States v. Ariana Sandoval
690 F. App'x 150
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ariana Jasmine Sandoval entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens and appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence from two traffic stops of the same SUV on consecutive days.
- First stop: September 15 — agent encountered SUV shortly after assisting with a border sensor activation; agent observed erratic swerving and stopped the vehicle.
- Second stop: September 16 — different Border Patrol agent stopped the same SUV; agent considered the prior day’s encounter, including a passenger’s admission of smuggling activity.
- The district court denied suppression, finding the totality of circumstances created reasonable suspicion for both stops and credited the agents’ testimony.
- Government prevailed at the suppression hearing; appeal reviewed de novo for reasonable suspicion and for clear error on factual findings and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the Sept. 15 stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Agent lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the SUV | Agent’s observation of erratic swerving near an activated border sensor and proximity to the border justified suspicion | Court held the Sept. 15 stop was supported by reasonable suspicion (totality of circumstances) |
| 2) Whether the Sept. 16 stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Agent lacked reasonable suspicion for a second stop the next day | Agent reasonably relied on prior day’s suspicious encounter, passenger’s admitted smuggling activity, vehicle characteristics, and agents’ experience | Court held the Sept. 16 stop was supported by reasonable suspicion (prior events and Brignoni‑Ponce factors combined) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2015) (totality-of-circumstances and Brignoni‑Ponce factors for roving Border Patrol stops)
- United States v. Rangel‑Portillo, 586 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2009) (clear‑error review of factual findings and credibility at suppression hearing)
- Brignoni‑Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975) (enumerating factors for reasonable suspicion in roving stops)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 564 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2009) (erratic driving can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Aguirre‑Valenzuela, 700 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1983) (temporal and spatial coincidence with border enforcement activity can factor into suspicion)
- United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2001) (innocent behaviors may form a suspicious composite for experienced officers)
- United States v. Ramirez, 839 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2016) (proximity to border and commonality of trafficking in area weigh toward reasonable suspicion)