United States v. Ortiz-Gualajara
4:16-cr-01654
D. Ariz.Apr 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Pedro Ortiz-Gualajara was stopped on AZ State Route 90 on August 4, 2016, after Border Patrol Agent Frank Agudio followed and then stopped his northbound vehicle following observed head movement and acceleration as the vehicle passed the agent’s parked, unmarked truck.
- Agent Agudio had stationed himself in the SR 90 median because the nearby Border Patrol checkpoint was closed for weather; he returned after a roughly 2.5-hour absence following unrelated arrests earlier that day.
- Agent Agudio testified SR 90 is a known smuggling route and that scouts and increased smuggling activity occur when the checkpoint is closed; two marijuana seizures had occurred earlier the same day.
- Records checks showed the vehicle was registered to a Phoenix address and had not crossed a port of entry that day.
- Based on these facts, Agudio stopped the vehicle; subsequent evidence led to federal drug charges. Defendant moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- Magistrate Judge Rateau recommended granting the motion to suppress, concluding the totality of circumstances did not support reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agent had reasonable suspicion to stop Ortiz-Gualajara | Agent relied on: checkpoint closure and increased smuggling, two earlier marijuana seizures, defendant’s looking away and accelerating, vehicle registered to Phoenix, no port-of-entry crossing, and agent’s experience | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion because the cited factors were individually innocent, common to many travelers on SR 90, and the agent’s inferences were unreliable | Magistrate: No reasonable suspicion; stop unconstitutional; recommend suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitting brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (stops based on reasonable suspicion are permissible)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion assessed by specific, articulable facts and rational inferences)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (totality of circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (aggregate evaluation of innocent factors may yield reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (agent experience and location-specific factors evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (officers may use experience regarding smuggling patterns but inferences must be objectively reasonable)
- United States v. Montero–Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (officer experience contributes to, but does not replace, objective reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Berber–Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2007) (factors relevant to Border Patrol stops listed for totality analysis)
- United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (routes used by both smugglers and many innocent travelers have limited probative value)
- United States v. Garcia-Camacho, 53 F.3d 244 (9th Cir. 1995) (minor speed or driving discrepancies carry little weight for reasonable suspicion)
- Nicacio v. INS, 797 F.2d 700 (9th Cir. 1986) (experience cannot give unfettered discretion to conduct stops)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 976 F.2d 592 (9th Cir. 1992) (travel on public highways not inherently suspicious)