United States v. Padilla-Esparza, 798 F.3d 993

CBP dog alerted to a hidden non-factory compartment in Padilla-Esparza’s Honda Ridgeline at the Paso del Norte port on Feb 25, 2013; vehicle was entered in TECS.
On Sept 7, 2013 outbound CBP inspection, Padilla-Esparza initially failed to declare $2,000 hidden in a camera case and had recent outlet-mall clothing receipts inconsistent with his claimed landscaping earnings; Agent Aguilera was notified and added a TECS alert and later created a BOLO for suspected bulk cash/drug smuggling.
A BOLO (Sept 10, 2013) describing the vehicle and non-factory compartment was disseminated to Border Patrol; on Sept 13, BPAs at Las Cruces checkpoint reviewed the BOLO.
Heavy rain led an agent to wave vehicles through; BPAs later realized the waved vehicle matched the BOLO and initiated a traffic stop about 15 miles down the road, briefly released the driver after a miscommunication that they had the wrong vehicle, then reinitiated a second stop two miles later.
Padilla-Esparza consented to a canine sniff at the second stop; the dog alerted and agents discovered 16 kg of cocaine in the hidden compartment; he was indicted, moved to suppress, pled conditional guilty, and appealed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Padilla-Esparza’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Officer Aguilera had reasonable suspicion to issue the BOLO	Aguilera lacked particularized reasonable suspicion from the prior incidents	Aguilera reasonably relied on dog alert to hidden compartment, undeclared cash, inconsistent explanations, and frequent checkpoint travel	Aguilera had reasonable suspicion; BOLO valid
Whether the BPAs had reasonable suspicion for the second stop after releasing Padilla-Esparza	Any suspicion dissipated after the first stop and release; no new information justified a second stop	The first stop did not dispel suspicion because agents did not question or search him and release was due to a misidentification; BOLO suspicion remained	Second stop reasonable; suspicion had not dissipated
Whether canine sniff/search was constitutional	Contended sniff unlawful because the stop lacked reasonable suspicion	Sniff lawful because second stop was supported by reasonable suspicion (argument about canine search not separately developed on appeal)	Canine sniff upheld as derivative of valid second stop

United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 550 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2008) (officer who issues alert supplies the relevant suspicion for later stops)
Hensley v. United States, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (permitting reliance on police-issued bulletins/BOLOs for stops)
Arizona v. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances and officer training permit inferences supporting reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Peters, 10 F.3d 1517 (10th Cir. 1993) (second stop invalid where initial encounter dispelled suspicion)
United States v. Ilazi, 730 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1984) (recognizing successive investigatory stops are more intrusive but not per se forbidden)