United States v. Noe Raygoza-Garcia
902 F.3d 994
9th Cir.2018Background
- On March 12, 2014 Border Patrol Agents observed a red Dodge Neon on I-15 about 70 miles from the U.S.–Mexico border and followed it after noting changes in speed and lane movements.
- Agents ran records showing the vehicle (with Baja California plates) had crossed the border that morning and multiple times in the prior month; the morning driver was not the same person as the current driver.
- Agents testified that such facts (driver switch, repeated clean crossings) are drug-smuggling indicators based on their experience; they also noted the driver’s posture, steering grip, and alleged drifting.
- Agents initially reported seeing a single key without a keychain in the ignition (an alleged smuggling indicator) but later amended their declarations to state there was a fish-shaped keychain; credibility of this point was questioned.
- Agents stopped the vehicle, obtained consent for a canine sniff/search, and discovered methamphetamine and heroin; district court denied suppression and refused to judicially notice defense proffered data on other Border Patrol stops.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Raygoza-Garcia: the observed conduct (slowing, minor lane drifting, posture, Mexican plates, border crossings) were innocuous and insufficient for individualized suspicion | Government: totality of circumstances (driver switch, recent crossing history, driving behavior, agents’ experience) provided particularized, objective basis to suspect smuggling | Court: Affirmed — under totality of circumstances and deference to agents’ experience and district court credibility findings, there was reasonable suspicion to stop |
| Whether court should take judicial notice of data on other Murrieta Border Patrol stops to show pattern of unproductive/unsupported stops | Raygoza-Garcia: data and PACER search show many unprosecuted stops and support inference agents routinely make unsupported stops | Government: data incomplete, not proper for judicial notice and insufficient to prove misapplication of reasonable suspicion | Court: Denied — data not appropriate for judicial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); insufficient to establish systemic misapplication |
| Whether agents’ credibility issues (key/keychain inconsistency) fatally undermined reasonable suspicion | Raygoza-Garcia: agents’ inconsistent statements about single key reduce probative weight of that factor and overall credibility | Government: other factors remain and district court appropriately gave limited weight to the single-key claim | Court: Single-key issue given only moderate probative value; credibility concerns noted but did not negate reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (totality of circumstances and deference to officers’ experience in border stops)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (permitting inferences from cumulative facts; reject divide-and-conquer)
- United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (officers cannot rely solely on generalized innocuous conduct affecting large segments of the population)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (factors relevant to border patrol vehicle stops)
- United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (limits on deference to officers’ inferences; need rational connection between facts and suspicion)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (noted in concurrence regarding disproportionate scrutiny and racial/ethnic impacts)