Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cr-01634/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cr-01634-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Antonio Aldaco
Defendant
Antonio Aldaco-Lugo
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ANTONIO ALDACO-LUGO, 

aka Jose Antonio Aldaco,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-01634-TUC-CKJ (CRP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION

 TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

Pending before theCourt is Defendant Aldaco-Lugo’s Motion to Suppress Statements.

(Doc 37). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on June 2, 2010. Based on

the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing the Magistrate Judge recommends the

District Court DENY the motion. 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

The court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress statements filed by

Defendant Aldaco-Lugo. (Doc 37). Defendant argues that his statements made during the

questioning in the desert were made without reading him his Miranda rights, and that those

statements were not made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The Government

Case 4:09-cr-01634-CKJ-CRP Document 105 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

contendsthe Defendant’s questioning did not require Mirandizing asit was a Terry stop and

the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop and question Defendant AldacoLugo. At the evidentiary hearing, the Government produced the following witnesses to

support its position:

1. Agent Roberto Rodriguez, Jr., U.S. Border Patrol Agent employed by the Border

Patrol since 2006, and since that time assigned primarily to Tucson Patrol Station. 

FACTUAL FINDINGS

On direct examination Agent Rodriguez testified that on July 8, 2009 he was assigned

to Camp Corkscrew near Sasabe, Arizona, a mile north of the port of entry to the United

States. (TR p. 21). He and his partner, U.S. Border Patrol Agent James Dominguez, were

patrolling that area for illegal trafficking, drug smuggling, or terrorists. (TR p. 24). Agents

were driving their standard Border Patrol green and white truck - Agent Rodriguez was

driving and Agent Dominguez was sitting at the passenger seat. (TR p. 25). At

approximately, 1:30 p.m. on their way to Pozo Verde Mountains, through milepost 4, State

Route 286, approximately one mile west of State Route 286, Agent Dominguez spotted an

individual, later identified as Defendant Aldaco-Lugo, near a blue-flagged water barrel. (TR

p. 26). Agent Rodriguez testified that he stopped the vehicle and using his binoculars

located the Defendant being approximately, 50-100 yards away from the agents’ vehicle. (TR

p. 28). Agent Dominguez pursued the Defendant on foot in the direction indicated by Agent

Rodriguez. When the Defendant stopped running (TR 43), Agent Dominguez told the

Defendant to come to the Border Patrol vehicle. (TR p. 28). 

Agent Rodriguez testified that Agent Dominguez walked the Defendant to the Border

Patrol truck. Without Mirandizing the Defendant, agents questioned Defendant where he

was from and whether he entered the U.S. illegally. (TR p. 29). The agents also asked

questions necessary to fill out the field version of the Form 826: his name, his citizenship,

date and place of birth, parents’ names, whether he understands or reads in Spanish, and the

place of entering the border. (TR p. 31-33). Agent Rodriguez wrote down Defendant’s

Case 4:09-cr-01634-CKJ-CRP Document 105 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

answers in the Border Patrol Form 826 which the defendant refused to sign. (TR p. 32).

Defendant responded by providing a false name (“Jose Lopez-Lopez”), providing a false date

of birth and place of birth in Mexico, stating he was a Mexican citizen and that he entered

a few days earlier by crossing the border west of their present location. (TR p. 38).

On direct Agent Rodriguez testified that at the time of the apprehension both agents

were wearing uniforms, having their service weapons exposed (TR p. 40), but not out (TR

p. 29); they questioned the Defendant with a soft tone without any coercion (TR p. 35), and

Defendant was compliant. (TR p. 43). However, on cross examination, Agent Rodriquez

stated that if the Defendant wanted to walk away, they would have stopped him and not let

go without answering questions as to his status. (TR p. 45).

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Miranda were violated and statements he gave to the U.S. Border Patrol

agents should be suppressed. The Government contends the Defendant was not in custody

when he was questioned and his statements were obtained as a result of a Terry stop which

did not require Miranda warnings.

Miranda warnings are mandatory only before custodial interrogation, when an

individual has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived on his freedom of action in any

significant way. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436, 444 (1966). However, not all

encounters between police officers and citizens involve custodial interrogation. Terry v.

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16 (1968). “[A]n initially consensual encounter between a police

officer and a citizen can be transformed into seizure or detention within the meaning of the

Fourth Amendment, if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a

reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave.” I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S.

210, 215 (1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, a Terry stop, i.e. a

routine stop with brief questioning is allowed without prior Miranda warning, provided

however, that the stop and the inquiry should be reasonably related in scope to the

Case 4:09-cr-01634-CKJ-CRP Document 105 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

justification for their initiation. Terry, 392 U.S. at 29. The officer may question individuals

as to their citizenship and immigration status, or ask to explain suspicious circumstances, but

any further detention or questioning must be based on the person’s consent or probable

cause. U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82 (1975). 

However, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “stopping and detaining persons for

questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be

aliens.” Id. at 884. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific articulable facts that the

persons are illegally in the country. These facts include characteristics of the area in which

they encounter a person, its proximity to the border, behavior of the person, attempts to evade

the officers. Id. at 885. In all situations the officer is entitled to assess the facts in light of

his or her experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling. Terry at 27. 

The Court finds that Border Patrol officers had reasonable suspicion that Defendant

was an illegal alien because Defendant was found alone in an area close to the U.S.-Mexican

border and he tried to flee once he noticed the Border Patrol vehicle. The questions posed

to the Defendant were related to the suspicion that caused Border Patrol officers to initiate

the stop and questioning. In a virtually analogous case, Ninth Circuit held that based on the

area of apprehension famous for being used by smugglers and the defendant’s attempt to flee,

the agent had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was an illegal alien. U.S. v. CervantesFlores, 421 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir.2005). In Cervantes-Flores, the agent asked questions

about the defendant’s citizenship, whether he had permission to be in the United States and

how he had crossed into the United States. Ninth Circuit found these questions to be within

the limited scope of questions to determine if Cervantes crossed the border illegally. Id. at

830. In the case at issue, the Border Patrol agents asked the Defendant about his name, his

citizenship, date and place of birth, parents’ names, whether he entered the U.S. illegally, and

the place of entering the border. In view of this Court, all questions related to Defendant’s

citizenship, date and place of birth, parents’ names, up to and including the question if he was

in the U.S. illegally, were part of the Terry stop and did not require Miranda warning.

Case 4:09-cr-01634-CKJ-CRP Document 105 Filed 06/08/10 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

However, once the Defendant stated that he entered the United States illegally, the Border

Patrol officers had a probable cause for arresting the Defendant. Therefore, all subsequent

questioning constituted custodial interrogation and required Miranda warning. At the

evidentiary hearing, the AUSA Robert Fellrath conceded that any statement made after the

statement about Defendant’s illegal presence in the U.S. can be suppressed. (TR p. 51-52).

Defendant further contends that the statements made by him during questioning were

not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, because the Defendant was dehydrated, weakened,

and disoriented, had symptoms of a heat stroke, and his will was overborne. (TR p. 57). The

Court finds there was not evidence in the record proving the alleged heat stroke of the

Defendant. 

There was testimony that it was hot and Defendant was not perspiring. Many lay

people would recognize the absence of sweating in these circumstances as a possible

symptom of a heat exhaustion or heat stroke. Nonetheless, the actual determination would

require expert testimony and the evidence of other symptoms of the condition, such as

delirium. No such evidence was provided. Further, no mention of heat stroke is made in

Defendant’s motion. The closest reference is that the confession was made “at the time of

great exhaustion and confusion.” (Doc. 37, motion, p. 7, ll. 29). The testimony concerning

lack of perspiration (TR 44-45), unsupported by any other evidence of significant physical

or mental distress, is inadequate to establish that the statements made were involuntary or

unreliable. 

Furthermore, presence of a medical condition that might impair judgment of the

defendant does not necessarily render the statements made in such condition involuntary.

Defendant must prove a coercive activity of the officers. In this case, there is no evidence

of coercion exercised by Border Patrol agents. Therefore, this Court finds that the statements

at issue were made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. 

Case 4:09-cr-01634-CKJ-CRP Document 105 Filed 06/08/10 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set out above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District

Judge, after his independent review and analysis, DENY Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

Statements (Doc 37). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(2), any party may serve and

file written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The

parties are advised that any objections filed are to be identified with the following case

number: CR-09-01634-TUC-CKJ.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2010.

Case 4:09-cr-01634-CKJ-CRP Document 105 Filed 06/08/10 Page 6 of 6