*2
positive
Upon
license.
identification of Sa-
JOLLY,
JONES,
Before
HILL and
Cir-
linas-Garza, they asked him and his wife
Judges.
cuit
step
and two children to
out of the vehicle.
HILL,
ROBERT MADDEN
Circuit
point
At this
both
asked Salinas-
Judge:
taking
if he
Garza
into Mexico
appeals
$10,000.
Santos Salinas-Garza
his convic-
in excess of
receiving
After
attempting
transport
tion of
monetary
negative response,
agent
one
drove the ve-
$10,000
instruments of more than
secondary inspection
hicle over to the
area
filing
United States into Mexico
family.
while the other walked with the
required currency
report,
joined
group,
violation of Cano
and also asked Sali-
going
nas-Garza whether was
$10,000
deny-
claims that the district court erred in
from the United
over
States. Sali-
suppress
having
his motion to
evidence
denied
A
nas-Garza
search
followed,
illegal
on
inspectors
an
search and that the evidence of the truck
find-
color,
black,
blue,
Agent
testify
1. Since
Saldana did not
at the
dark
exactly
it is not clear
how he
gray,
gray
described the
dark
and dark
two-tone.
pickup truck. There are various references to
$25,000
bag containing
ing purple
findings
in cash made
fact
similar to those set
the back
bucket-seat.
facts,
concealed
forth
above. Based
these
found in
An additional
Salinas-
$444
judge held
search
of the vehicle
$2,500 in
wallet and
his wife’s
Garza’s
justified
under
“border search”
(the $2,500
seized).
purse
exception
amendment,
fourth
probable
there was
cause under the fourth
signs posted
There are
the border
*3
amendment,4
that
and
under 31
travelers of
U.S.C.
control area that
inform
5317(b)
requirements;
monetary reporting
there
these
cause.
signs
Also,
approximately
are
two feet
three
based
presented
on the evidence
at
Although
feet
size.
exact location of
judge
found Salinas-Garza
signs is not clear
these
violating
of
31
record, there are various statements to the
Salinas-Garza contests these conclusions.
primary
effect that
are located at the
inspection
(apparently
area
the area where
II.
travelers first
at
United
arrive
States
Mexico)
The border search
vicinity
exception
from
and in the
of the
allows
export
Although
lot.2
the record
customs
does not
to make warrantless
diagram
area,
a
contain
of
border
persons
searches of
entering the United
appears
that Salinas-Garza had to have
having any
suspicion of
passed
export
prior
reaching
Oy
United
activity.
criminal
See
States v.
stopped.3
toll booth where he was
arzun,
570,
(5th Cir.1985);
760 F.2d
574
Rojas,
159,
671
164
suppress
Salinas-Garza made a motion to
(5th Cir.1982).
circuits
the evidence which
heard
Some
have
concurrently
extend
ed
persons
with the trial on the merits. At the
exiting
conclu-
rationale to
country.5 See,
jury,
judge
sion
trial without
e.g., United States v. Dun-
2. The statements are:
poster.
out a
booth.
the defendant was in a
you
on the
any signs
lot.
co.
telling
taking money
that located?
the United States over the excess of
ers
state the
are
has
currency
Agent
Mr. Alfaro: Can
Customs
Mr. Alfaro: If a
Agent
Mr. Alfaro: Tell me one
Customs
Mr.
Customs
entry.
placed
export
quite
to be
telescope?
Alfaro: Where
[******]
[******]
export money?
lot is visible as
going
Martinez:
Bowman:
that are
visible in
reported.
law,
lot.
Agent
out in the
Agent
Judge
Agent
any
south out
out
reporting requirements
form,
Bowman:
Cano:
Martinez:
visible
person
you
Right
I think
English
says?
And
primary
you approach
read
entering
We
there on the
we
at the booth where
Hidalgo
country,
This notice about
and
so,
sign
All
have
it,
have these
explain
truck,
booths and
though,
over the
where it is as
it is a
poster
Spanish
posters
into Mexi-
departing
are there
where is
you
the toll
the law
j 10,000
with-
as to
post-
port
that
that
are
Neither
4. 5. These
sociation v.
499,
al — modified
out
ined as to their
search of
[when
Supreme
L.Ed.2d
cated that
sion. See United States v. Des
pealed.
the fourth
port
beside it.”
One Ninth Circuit
is here in the front of this
here.
those that
63,
whether Salinas-Garza drove
our
border
Agent
504
answering
”)
lot,
94 S.Ct. at
on the border search
exiting
circuits
conclusions,
812
*
and
(9th Cir.1984), (“If
Court decision
appellant's belongings
Bowman: The
Shultz,
search,
amendment
leaving
export
the Fourth
are
*
would reach an
belongings
base
question by
1518,
proceeding
country]
416 U.S.
part
lot is this
their
*
panel,
agent replied:
The Court stated: "those
we would rule that
837
971,
can,
Cir.1982),
2574, 2581,
cert. S. Ct.
607,
(1975);
L.Ed.2d
961,
461 U.S.
103 S.Ct.
Ohio,
1, 21,
Terry v.
(1983);
L.Ed.2d 1321
United
(1968);
L.Ed.2d
see also
Swarovski,
(2nd
Cir.
Gomez,
States v.
1979).
Such standard would allow a war-
(5th Cir.1985);
Head,
United States v.
leaving
rantless search
(5th Cir.1982).
Reasonable
any
“without
modicum of
suspicion may
predicated
upon the col
activity.” Rojas,
of criminal
671 F.2d at
lective
of law enforcement offi
However,
we do not need to decide
cers where there has been reliable commu
adopt
position
whether to
such a
because
nication
supplier
between the
of the infor
even if such a border search were constitu-
acting
mation and the officer
upon the in
tionally permissible, Congress can further
formation.
Allison,
United States v.
restrict
the search
of federal
*4
(5th Cir.),
agents, and has done so in the
context
U.S.
this case.
it is not the constitutional
(1980).
Head,
See also
there must be reasonable making cause before lations.”). search. report shall file a rea- bailee argues that Salinas-Garza, (b) when of this section because under subsection not exist suspicion did sonable agent, knowingly— person, information bailee search was only for the basis un- it from an Saldana, received from who (1) transported has or at- transports or reliability. of unknown source identified transported tempts transport or have de- Moreover, since some argues $10,- monetary more than instruments of (the the truck color of proved incorrect tails 000 at one time— com- plate number were license and the (A) place in the United States from money re- accurate), the amount pletely the United to or outside amount,” “large and only a to was ferred States____ were innocent details accurate 5316(a)(1)(A). This statute re 31 U.S.C. § give to a ones, did not rise information knowingly quires that be done the acts suspicion. “knowingly” wilfully. The words and “wil entirely clear where is not itWhile necessary fully” “make it that the defend from, originally there came the information currency actually known of the ant have record that anoth is some indication reporting requirement voluntarily and have to Saldana.7 agent supplied er DEA intentionally legal violated that known However, assuming information crime.” duty in order to be convicted of unknown relia an informant comes from Warren, tip cor bility, the details when (5th Cir.) (en banc) (emphasis original), *5 investigation, independent it by roborated S.Ct. suspicion. a reasonable may give rise to requi Proof the de Gomez, Even the 776 F.2d when site can be established innocent, they can suffice. Id. tails are steps by govern affirmative are taken the case, though some present In the requirements to make the law’s ment com information were not aspects of the Granda, 565 known. v. United States details, accurate, although pletely other (5th Cir.1978). See also accurate, “innocent,” and in the were Juan, v. 545 F.2d States San United implicated only one vehicle aggregate Cir.1976) (2d (“[I]n prove to wil order fact, although In a num person. and one fulness, should make some the Government through, drove it of other trucks ber reporting requirement bring to the effort a similar license the one with was attention.”). to the traveler’s facts, hav stopped. These plate that the evi- The trial court concluded that corroborated, give to rea ing did rise been beyond a reasonable dence established stop the justified sonable section doubt that the violated and search of Salinas-Garza. 5316(a)(1)(A). doing In the court found so requirements of the evidence fulfilled the III. judge statute. What evidence the relied is argument second Salinas-Garza’s clear, exactly reviewing on not is support insufficient to the evidence was record, entire the judge's decision does not reporting re- conviction appear to incorrect. in evaluating Since 5316(a)(1)(A). section We quirement of challenge sufficiency to the of the evi- argument. merit this find no to evidence, togeth- dence the court views “the provides, relevant Section 5316 inferences, er all reasonable part, that: light government,” most to the favorable (c) v. (a) Aguila-Reyes, Del Except provided as in subsection (5th Cir.1983), section, agent or find or an we of this trial, origin appears is information. During "I this counsel stated: defense procurred originally informa- report Where Hester see the and see witness] want to [the and he was not called in the record agent] name is in it tion where Cecil Hester’s [DEA testify. Saldana.” who called the officer lating to convict Salinas- evidence was sufficient 5316(a)(1)(A). U.S.C. The crime Garza. transport $10,000 in excess of out of country this reporting it. To ex-
In Granda the court considered methods port such an amount is not by put crime. See government people which the could reporting requirements. on notice of the Granda, suggested One method for those (5th Cir.1978). Yet in opinion an oral country “to add a sentence following rendered the district Customs Declaration Form to the effect persuaded court stated: “I beyond am you carrying greater $5,000 that if are than given doubt that aat time he required you law fill out certain did have the required knowledge that forms. Such a sentence would all prohibited by law for him to take out- travelers on notice.” Id. at 926. also See side of this amount of Schnaiderman, United State v. $10,000.” in excess of words, In other (5th Cir.1978)(the forms should district court found guilty Juan, modified); San be so 545 F.2d at and sentenced him for violation of a non- (same). n. 18 319-20 use of a modified existent ignores offense. The majority indicating form that a must declare district court’s statement opin- oral whether carrying greater she is than ion, apparently viewing it as a misstate- $10,000 has been to satisfy govern- held ment corrected a later written conclu- of proving ment’s burden notification of sion that Salinas-Garza reporting requirement. of violat- See United Rodriguez, Even if the Cir.1979) (“The signed by majority modified form is correct in respect, I must Rodriguez government’s satisfied the bur- still dissent because of failure of the proving reporting .den notification government satisfy proof. its burden of requirement Rodriguez’s knowing language Based on the statute, we violation.”). wilful have previously held that the circumstances, present how prove must “the defendant’s knowledge of ever, such a possible. solution was not *6 reporting the requirement specific and his crossing Persons the border not were re intent to commit the crime.” quired to fill out a declaration form. Granda, (5th only possible practical the method for Cir.1978). Here the district court found government the put to travelers on notice given that the notice was not effective signs. the use of The use of “[bjecause of none us [signs look at those signs, therefore, situation, present in the posted at the In the written border].” where the other more direct of forms no opinion, the “signs court did find that available, tice were not adequate to bridge the area reminded travelers that put signs travelers on notice. These were they any must declare monetary instru- located at such persons locations that trav $10,000.” of ments more than I do not see eling pass to Mexico would the this any statement as in negating, and see them. manner passed lot, putting him or contradicting on notice. prior finding Since that put Salinas-Garza was by on notice signs by are not read travelers and signs, the government has met its burden therefore provide do not effective notice of proving of knowledge. reporting requirement. any event, In is clear that the district judgment The court’s state- of conviction is AF- FIRMED. ment as to signs supplied whether the actu- knowledge respect al with to this defendant JOLLY, E. GRADY Judge, Circuit dis- was its that did not. Hence a senting: key element of clearly the offense is miss- majority The affirms opinion the district district court’s court’s of holding that the guilty defendant is guilt. of vio- adjudging
Furthermore, not to act as the district court the district court did supplying to by it went on defendant of a crime satisfy element when this opinion per- that it was rejected element the actual trial its oral factual state reasonable doubt that beyond a suaded court. knowledge reporting of the had conclusion, pains I take to make it that the defend- the fact requirement from saying signs I am that not that the clear money his excess after failed declare ant adequate posted at the border are into detention. border he was taken upon the trier of competent evidence which Salinas-Garza whether only asked officers fact can conclude that defendant had money in excess of transporting he was require- knowledge reporting actual of replied he instance In each simply saying I am the burden ments. that previously held have that negative. We prove is to the trier declaration form a customs question on of fact that the defendant had actual carrying is the traveler regarding whether knowledge. If trier of concludes fact insufficient money a certain amount provide given signs did not de- that requirement. reporting Unit- notice knowledge of reporting actual fendant Schnaiderman, ed supplant requirements, we are not free to effect, Cir.1978). any, “The court finder of fact. Stated merely question is to cause travel- differently, post all government can carry large illegal it is er to think that signs Printing that the Office Government country. money into amount defendant, presses, can roll off its but if a way the traveler it is question in no tells report, charged failing with can convince enter leave the perfectly legal to notwithstanding the trier of fact that $5,000.00 more than but a form knowledge gained never actual completed.” fact must be reporting this reporting requirement, he is entitled to was not told the bor-
Id. Salinas-Garza acquittal nothing an and there an transporting der officers that appellate panel can almighty do about legal reported. must be Just as prosecution. a criminal question determined to be the written Schnaiderman, so respectfully must the ineffective I dissent. questions here. Therefore neither the
oral
questions nor the defendant’s answer are
dispositive question of Salinas-Gar- reporting require-
za’s
ment.
Furthermore, I I dissent because think *7 inappropriate appellate that it is for this COMPANY, INC., AND CUNNINGHAM panel to itself as fact-finder. substitute Plaintiff-Appellant, acknowledging majority, apparently court made a district never REALTY MANAGE- CONSOLIDATED knowledge, that the defendant had actual MENT, INC., al., et testimony regarding sets out all of the Defendants-Appellees. warning location and content of the concludes, fact, 2 and as a footnote No. 85-2842. had actual Appeals, United States Court reporting requirements, fact that dis- Fifth Circuit. express trict court in its words did not find. testimony concerning All of this the loca- Nov. warning signs tion and content of the rejected before the district court who it as knowledge. majority
a basis fails to inform us whence it derives its