657 F. App'x 298
5th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Jesus Erasmo Ramirez-Mendoza pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100+ kg of a marijuana-containing mixture, reserving the right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress.
- Border Patrol agents stopped his vehicle near the U.S.–Mexico border after radio reports and observed erratic driving: very slow tandem travel with another car and later erratic turns.
- Agents had observed suspected narcotics being loaded on a raft on the Mexican side and transported across the river to the private property where the vehicle traveled.
- One agent testified he heard the relevant radio transmissions before the stop; the government relied on the collective-knowledge doctrine.
- Ramirez-Mendoza sought production of the radio recordings, asserting they were Jencks Act material and that nonproduction prejudiced his suppression claim.
- The district court denied suppression and declined to compel the recordings; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle | Stop lacked adequate, particularized facts; court relied too heavily on proximity to border | Totality of circumstances (proximity, area, erratic driving, agents' observations, radio reports) established reasonable suspicion | Affirmed: reasonable suspicion existed under Brignoni-Ponce factors and totality of circumstances |
| Whether collective-knowledge doctrine supported the stop | Collective knowledge improperly applied because agent relied on radio reports he didn’t personally observe | Agent testified he heard the radio transmissions; collective knowledge applies when information is shared among agents | Affirmed: use of collective-knowledge doctrine was proper |
| Whether the radio recordings were producible Jencks Act material | Recordings were statements under Jencks and should have been produced before/at suppression hearing | Recordings were not shown to be materially different from testimony; prosecutor offered to produce them; defendant failed to develop claim at hearing | Even if error, defendant showed no prejudice; no reversible Jencks error |
| Whether any Jencks Act nonproduction was harmless | Nonproduction likely affected outcome by preventing impeachment of agent testimony | Defendant did not show a reasonable possibility recordings would change outcome and declined to pursue at hearing | Harmless-error analysis applies; no substantial influence on suppression hearing outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.) (Brignoni-Ponce factors and roving Border Patrol stops)
- United States v. Rangel-Portillo, 586 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for factual findings at suppression hearings)
- United States v. Garza, 727 F.3d 436 (5th Cir.) (reasonable suspicion for stops)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stop-and-frisk Fourth Amendment principles)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (factors for stops near border)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances; caution against isolating Brignoni-Ponce factors)
- United States v. Zapata-Ibarra, 212 F.3d 877 (5th Cir.) (not every Brignoni-Ponce factor must favor suspicion)
- United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753 (5th Cir.) (collective-knowledge doctrine)
- United States v. Williams, 998 F.2d 258 (5th Cir.) (definition of "statement" under Jencks Act)
- United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582 (5th Cir.) (review standard for Jencks Act statement determinations)
- United States v. Ramirez, 174 F.3d 584 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error analysis for Jencks violations)
- United States v. Montgomery, 210 F.3d 446 (5th Cir.) (strict harmless-error application)
- United States v. Surface, 624 F.2d 23 (5th Cir.) (showing of material discrepancy required to prove prejudice from nondisclosure)