United States v. Hector Soto-Zuniga
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16962
9th Cir.2016Background
- Soto-Zuniga was stopped at the San Clemente Border Patrol checkpoint and sent to secondary inspection; agents searched his car ~35 minutes after the stop and found 2.9 kg methamphetamine hidden under a floor mat.
- Agents reported nervous behavior, the smell of marijuana (one agent), a burned cigarillo, loose tobacco, multiple air fresheners, and an alleged admission by Soto-Zuniga that he had smoked marijuana in the car.
- Soto-Zuniga claimed he had given a ride to three teenagers at the request of Christian Rios Campos (a known smuggler) and that those juveniles may have planted the drugs.
- Pretrial, Soto-Zuniga moved to suppress the drugs and sought discovery of (1) checkpoint arrest/search statistics to test the checkpoint’s primary purpose, and (2) government investigative materials concerning Rios (possibly identifying the three teenagers). The district court denied both discovery requests and denied suppression; first trial ended in mistrial; second trial resulted in conviction and 72-month sentence.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in denying both discovery requests, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings (including discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the checkpoint’s primary purpose).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense was entitled to discovery of San Clemente checkpoint arrest/search statistics to test checkpoint’s primary purpose | Soto-Zuniga: statistics are material to showing checkpoint’s primary purpose is drug interdiction (invalidating suspicionless stops) | Government: Rule 16 discovery not available for such collateral issues; Armstrong limits discovery | Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion; discovery permitted and remand for evidentiary hearing on checkpoint constitutionality |
| Whether defense was entitled to discovery of government's investigation into Rios (identifying teen passengers) | Soto-Zuniga: materials are material because they may identify teens who could corroborate or contradict his innocent-conduct defense | Government: Documents irrelevant, hearsay, inadmissible, and prejudicial under Rule 403 | Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion; materials meet Rule 16 low materiality threshold; remand with instructions to grant discovery with protective measures |
| Whether agents had probable cause to search the vehicle | Soto-Zuniga: nervousness and an unreliable single smell report insufficient for probable cause | Government: totality of circumstances (smell, paraphernalia, air fresheners, nervousness, admission) established probable cause | Court: Affirmed denial of suppression—district court’s factual findings supporting probable cause not clearly erroneous |
| Whether jury instruction or mens rea errors required reversal | Soto-Zuniga: proposed different reasonable-doubt wording and argued knowledge of type/quantity is an element after Alleyne | Government: used Ninth Circuit pattern instructions; type/quantity not element of §841 mens rea | Court: Rejected challenges; pattern reasonable-doubt instruction permitted; knowledge of type/quantity not an element |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (checkpoint program invalid if primary purpose is general crime control)
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (upholding interior immigration checkpoints as administrative seizures for immigration control)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (limits on discovery in selective-prosecution claims under Rule 16)
- United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568 (Rule 16 discovery of dog-training materials where material to defense)
- United States v. Thomas, 726 F.3d 1086 (permitting discovery of narcotics-dog records under Rule 16)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree exclusionary principle)
- United States v. Soyland, 3 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. case raising concerns about checkpoint practices)