Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02311/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02311-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon Hernandez-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED 

vs. 

RAMON 

PUBLISH · 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) 

HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

/'FILED---

uDJted States Court of Appeals Tenth Circult 

JUN 06 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 93-2311 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. Cr-93-273-~ SC) 

Submitted on the briefs:* 

William D. Fry, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Cruces, New 

Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant, Ramon Hernandez-Rodriguez. 

Kelly H. Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, (John J. 

Kelly, United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Las Cruces, 

New Mexico for Plaintiff-Appellee, United States of America. 

Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior 

District Judge.** 

BROWN, Senior District Judge. 

* The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); lOth Cir. R. 

34 .1. 2. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appe~l. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

** The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, District 

of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 1 
Following jury trial, the appellant Ramon Hernandez-Rodriguez 

(Hernandez) was convicted of importing less than fifty kilos of 

marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. §§ 952(A), 960(A) (1) and 

(B) (4), and of possession with intent to distribute that marijuana 

in violation of 21 u.s.c. §§ 841(a) (1) and (b) (1) (D). In this 

appeal, he claims that his Fourth Amendment right to be free of 

unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when he was 

searched at the international border, and he also claims that the 

government failed to prove that he knowingly transported marijuana 

into the country. 

Prior to trial, Hernandez filed a motion to suppress the 

marijuana seized at the border; an evidentiary hearing was held, 

and the district court denied the motion upon a finding that 

appellant was without standing to complain of the search and 

seizure. A review of the evidence presented at this hearing and 

at trial supports the following factual basis for the seizure and 

arrest of appellant Hernandez. 

Columbus, New Mexico, is a small town situated near the 

international border of the United States and Mexico. It sits 

right next to Palomas, Mexico, and many people travel between the 

two towns. At 7:00 p.m. on May 5, 1993, (Cinco de Mayo, a major 

holiday in the Republic of Mexico), Hernandez drove a 1978 

Thunderbird from Palomas into the primary inspection lane at the 

Columbus, New Mexico, Port of Entry. His only passenger was one 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 2 
Jesus Ortiz-Ortiz, appellant's co-defendant. 1 This primary 

inspection lane is 50 to 75 feet from the actual border fence. At 

this port of entry, government agents have responsibilities as 

immigration inspectors to ensure that all persons entering the 

United States are entering legally; and the agents also act as 

customs inspectors, checking vehicles to insure that no contraband 

is carried into the United states. 

Inspector Torres asked the occupants of the vehicle about 

their citizenship, and both Hernandez and Ortiz presented valid 

resident alien cards. As he reached into the vehicle to get the 

cards, Torres noted a strong odor of perfume or cologne, as if 

someone had broken an entire bottle of it in the car. This odor 

indicated to Torres that there was probably contraband in the 

vehicle. 

When questioned, Hernandez told Torres that they had come from 

Palomas, where they had been visiting bars and that they were going 

into Columbus, New Mexico. Another inspector, Martinez, checked 

the license plate on the Thunderbird and entered the number into 

the computer. Martinez also noted the strong perfume odor coming 

from the vehicle. Martinez asked who owned the car and was told 

that it belonged to a 11 friend. 11 Martinez asked this question twice 

because he had been working at the Columbus Port of Entry for over 

four years and had seen Ortiz pass through many times but never 

before in the Thunderbird. 

The appeal of appellant's co-defendant appears as United 

States of America v. Ortiz-ortiz, Case NO. 93-2309, opinion 

affirming conviction, filed this date. 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 3 
At the suppression hearing, Martinez also testified that as a 

routine part of his duties he ran Hernandez' name and date of birth 

through a computer check which resulted in a "positive hit that he 

had been referred to Customs before for zero tolerance, drugs." 2 

Upon receiving such a report, a customs agent automatically refers 

the car or individual to a secondary station for further 

investigation. 

At the secondary inspection station, Hernandez and Ortiz got 

out of the car at the request of Inspector Greifinger, who began 

his inspection in the back seat. He immediately found that the 

seat was not bolted down and, upon lifting it, he discovered 

packages of marijuana hidden under the bottom of the seat. A later 

inspection with a drug-detecting dog led to discovery of additional 

marijuana hidden in the top portion of the back seat. 

The marijuana seized totalled 40.6 pounds. Such an amount 

indicates that the marijuana was possessed with the intent to 

distribute. At trial, Customs Special Agent Briseno, who was in 

charge of the investigation, testified that its value ranged from 

$7 0 0 to $1, 10 0 a pound, depending on where it was sold in the 

2 The computer screen displayed the following information to 

Martinez -- "USC REFERRAL Z TOL," which suggested that Hernandez 

had been "referred" to the U. S. Customs Service for some sort of 

"zero tolerance" offense. This could possibly have been for 

possession of a small quantity of marijuana. "Zero tolerance" 

offenses are rarely prosecuted, and there was no evidence that 

defendant had been arrested for any such offense. 

After the suppression hearing, and prior to trial, defendant 

filed a Motion in Limine to exclude any evidence of a ''TECS HIT," 

and this motion was sustained. 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 4 
United States. It thus appears that the contraband was worth from 

$28,000 to $44,000. 

Agent Briseno determined that the registered owner of the 

Thunderbird was Genardo Nunez, a resident of Palomas, Chihuahua, 

with a post office address in Columbus, New Mexico. All efforts to 

contact Nunez were unsuccessful. Used shock absorbers were found 

during an inventory of the contents of the Thunderbird and, at the 

time of his arrest at the port of entry, Ortiz was found to have 

four $100 bills in his possession. 

Briseno questioned Hernandez and Ortiz separately after their 

arrest. Hernandez claimed that he set off at midday on a national 

holiday in Mexico to have his car repaired in Palomas, but he met 

Ortiz and they visited a series of bars and drank six or seven 

beers each. About 5:00p.m., they delivered the car to a Palomas 

mechanic for repair. The car was dismantled, and the mechanic 

found new shock absorbers were needed. Hernandez claimed he had 

$30 cash available for repairs at the outset, but he had spent half 

that amount drinking beers. Hernandez told Briseno that he and 

Ortiz started out on foot to buy new shock absorbers in Columbus, 

New Mexico, and along the way two people pulled up in the 

Thunderbird and told them -- "well, you know, here's my car, go 

ahead and take it. 11 The statement given by Ortiz to Briseno was 

essentially the same. 

Hernandez gave conflicting stories to the customs agents, to 

the court during the suppression hearing, and to the jury about his 

reason for being in the vehicle and his relationship to its owner. 

5 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 5 
He first told agents Martinez and Briseno that the car belonged to 

a 11 friend. 11 During the suppression hearing and at trial, he 

testified that he did not know the people who offered him the use 

of the car. 

At trial, Ortiz also testified that two strangers who appeared 

to be "good people" had loaned them the car and explained that the 

$400 he had in his possession came from an unemployment check and 

a loan of $100 from his father. In addition, the mechanic from 

Palomas testified that he advised Hernandez to buy American-made 

shocks across the border because of their superior quality. Mr. 

Jose Ortiz testified that he had loaned his son $100.00. This was 

the evidence submitted to the jury. 

In his motion to suppress, defendant claimed that his Fourth 

Amendment rights were violated by the search at the border, but 

this motion was denied by the district court upon a finding that 

Hernandez lacked standing to complain of the search. In spite of 

his counsel's assurance that the appellant would testify that the 

vehicle had been loaned to him by the registered owner, Nunez, when 

called to testify at the suppression hearing, Hernandez testified 

that he did not know the person who loaned him the car. Under 

these circumstances, the district court correctly found that 

Hernandez lacked standing. 3 The court further found that after the 

3 Hernandez testified in this manner: 

"Q. (by defense counsel) Was that vehicle given to you by 

someone? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Who gave you that vehicle? 

6 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 6 
initial stop, defendant was justifiably referred over to the 

secondary inspection station. such conclusion is supported by the 

three circumstances relied upon by the district court -- first, the 

strong fragrance which indicated to the inspectors at the first 

checkpoint that the vehicle was carrying contraband; second, by the 

message on the monitor that Hernandez had been previously involved 

with narcotics, and third, the evidence given by Hernandez himself 

that he did not own the vehicle. 

Following this testimony, the court made this finding 

regarding standing: 

I find this witness' testimony inherently 

improbable, and I will not accept -- I will not believe 

that somebody whom he didn't know just loaned him a car, 

so I cannot accept this testimony. 

This is a 1978 Thunderbird, so I'm going to find that 

the defendant has not established standing in this case. 

Ownership of the automobile or permission or 

permission by the owner to use it for the defendant's 

purposes. So that will be the Court's ruling on the 

question of finding (sic) (standing). (Tr. 7/20/93, p. 

82) . 4 

Hernandez claims that there was insufficient evidence of his 

knowledge or possession of the marijuana to sustain his conviction. 

A. 

Q. 

A. 

It was 

are. 

So you 

you? 

No. II 

two people. I don't know what their names 

**** don't know the name of the person who gave it to 

4 Routine stops and searches at the border are reasonable 

under the Fourth Amendment. u. s. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 

u.s. 531, L. Ed. 2d (1985). Even if "reasonable 

suspicion" was required before search, the custom inspectors here 

acted reasonably, in view of the strong odor in the vehicle, the 

"zero tolerance" computer alert, and the fact that Hernandez was 

unable to identify the owner of the vehicle. 

7 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 7 
In reviewing tnis assertion, we adopt the conclusions set out in 

our opinion in the companion case involving Ortiz, the passenger in 

the Hernandez vehicle. See u. s. v. Ortiz-ortiz, Case No. 93-2309, 

decided this date, ___ F. 2d ---- (lOth Cir. 1995). As there 

noted, the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, together with 

all inferences reasonably to be drawn from that evidence was 

sufficient to support the verdict of guilt. See U. s. v. McCoy, 

781 F. 2d 168, 170 (lOth Circuit 1985), and see U. s. v. ChavezPalacios, ___ F. 2d (lOth Circuit 1994). Here, Hernandez 

and his passenger gave identical improbable statements to the 

customs agents and to the jury concerning the mysterious appearance 

of two "good Samaritans" who offered the use of their car to 

apparent strangers without any arrangements for the return of the 

vehicle which contained contraband of a minimum value of $28,000. 

The entire car smelled strongly of perfume, commonly used to mask 

the odor of drugs, and marijuana was immediately found scarcely 

concealed under a loose back seat. At the time of arrest, 

Hernandez had no money, and Ortiz possessed four $100 bills. A 

reasonable jury was entitled to discredit Hernandez' explanation of 

how he came to be in possession of the vehicle and its contents and 

to conclude that Hernandez was engaged in a joint venture with his 

co-defendant and aided and abetted in the importation and· 

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute the same in 

violation of the laws of the United states. 5 

The Judgment is AFFIRMED. 

5 All who are involved in a joint venture may be found to be 

in constructive possession of marijuana. See U. s. v. Espinosa, 

771 F. 2d 1382, at 1392-94 (lOth Cir. 1985) cert. denied 474 u.s. 

1023. 

8 

Appellate Case: 93-2311 Document: 01019279272 Date Filed: 06/06/1995 Page: 8