Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02191/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Miranda-Enriquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED .. PUBLISH LJ(lited Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 121991 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2191 

VICTOR MIRANDA-ENRIQUEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 89-120-JB) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Michael G. Katz, Federal Public Defender, and Susan L. Foreman, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for 

Defendant-Appellant. 

William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, and Don J. Svet, First 

Assistant U. S. Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant-appellant Victor Miranda-Enriquez appeals from his 

conviction for illegal possession with intent to distribute marijuana based on the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a stop by a border patrol agent. 

Background 

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on February 15, 1989, a sensor 

connected to an immigration checkpoint on I-25 near Truth or 

Consequences, New Mexico indicated the presence of vehicle travelling north on New Mexico Highway 52. Border patrol agent Robert 

Johnston responded to the sensor alert by driving to the intersection of Highway 52, !~25 and U.S. Highway 85 and parking perpendicular to Highway 52 with his car headlights shining into the 

intersection. Agent Johnston testified that from his experience 

at the nearby I-25 checkpoint he knew that Highway 52 was commonly 

used by illegal alien smugglers to avoid the checkpoint and that 

smugglers were most likely to be on the highway in the nighttime 

hours. He had also made several hundred arrests of smugglers as a 

result of alerts from the Highway 52 sensor. The government did 

not put on any evidence which would inform us of how many innocent 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 2 
persons he stopped during the same period. 

Shortly after Agent Johnston parked, a 1984 Datsun Nissan 

Sentra travelling north on Highway 52 approached the intersection. 

As the car came to a stop at the stop sign, it was illuminated by 

the headlights of Agent Johnston's car. Agent Johnston noted that 

the car was heavily covered with fine powdery dust similar to the 

type of dust found on vehicles entering Highway 52 from a dirt 

road near Upham, New Mexico, that was also a well-documented 

smuggling route. He also admitted that the same dust is found in 

and around Highway 52 and that highway is also extensively 

traveled by tourists visiting a nearby lake and that the same dust 

is often seen on their cars. In addition, Agent Johnston saw 

several undefined shapes in the rear seat of the car which turned 

out to be child restraint seats. He testified that the car's 

driver, Mr. Miranda-Enriquez, appeared curiously "frozen" and did 

not look left or right, i.e., into the headlights of Agent 

Johnston's border patrol car, before turning onto U.S. Highway 85. 

Finally, as the car turned, Agent Johnston noted that it had 

Arizona license plates. 

Agent Johnston stopped the car approximately one mile from 

the intersection. After an exchange with the driver, the officer 

testified that he received permission to open the trunk where he 

discovered marijuana. Defendant denied that he gave consent. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 3 
A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Mr. MirandaEnriquez for possession with intent to distribute less than 

50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l). 

Mr. Miranda-Enriquez filed a motion to suppress that challenged 

the validity of both Agent Johnston's stop of his vehicle and his 

search of the car trunk. The district court denied the motion 

after an evidentiary hearing, holding that the stop was proper, 

that Mr. Miranda-Enriquez had consented to Agent Johnston 

searching the trunk and that even if Mr. Miranda-Enriquez had not 

consented, Agent Johnston had probable cause for conducting the 

search. Rec., vol. III, at 53-54. Mr. Miranda-Enriquez then 

entered a guilty plea to the indictment conditioned on his right 

to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. After being 

sentenced to 37 months imprisonment, Mr. Miranda-Enriquez timely 

appealed from the judgment recording that sentence. 

Discussion 

The controlling issue in this case is defendant's claim that 

the initial stop was unlawful. If it was, there clearly was 

insufficient attenuation between the stop and the search to purge 

it of the prior illegality. 

Under the government's view of this case, every out-of-state 

driver traveling on New Mexico Highway 52 at 9:00 p.m. with a 

dusty car who does not turn her or his head to look for oncoming 

cars at the intersection of Highway 52, I-25, and U.S. Highway 85, 

98 miles from the Mexican border, can be stopped and questioned by 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 4 
the Border Patrol. We conclude that this proposition cannot be 

reconciled with the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States. 

"The ultimate determination of reasonableness under the 

Fourth Amendment is • . . a conclusion of law that we review de 

nova." United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 672 (10th Cir. 

1989) . 

"[A]n investigatory stop is justified when an officer 

'observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to 

conclude in the light of his experience that criminal 

activity may be afoot.'" 

United States v. Monsisvais, 907 F.2d 987, 990 (10th Cir. 1990) 

(quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). 

"In determining whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area, officers may 

consider any number of factors, including: (1) characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is encountered; (2) the proximity of the area to the border; (3) 

the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road; 

(4) the previous experience of the agent with alien 

traffic; (5) information about recent illegal border 

crossings in the area; (6) the driver's behavior, 

including any obvious attempts to evade officers; (7) 

aspects of the vehicle, such as a station wagon with 

concealed compartments; and (8) the appearance that the 

vehicle is heavily loaded." 

Id. at 990; see United States v. Pollack, 895 F.2d 686, 690 (10th 

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 520 (1990). 

"Terms like 'articulable reasons' and 'founded suspicion' are not self-defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual 

situations that arise. But the essence of all that has 

been written is that the totality of the circumstances -- the whole picture -- must be taken into account. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 5 
Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers 

must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. II 

Monsisvais, 907 F.2d at 990 (citing United States v. Cortez, 449 

U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981)) (emphasis in original). In analyzing the 

picture as a whole, it must be remembered that "not every suspicion that is 'articulable' is reasonable." Id. at 992. 

The testimony of Agent Johnston established the following 

facts which we have previously summarized: Mr. Miranda-Enriquez 

was driving northwest on New Mexico Highway 52 near Truth or 

Consequences, which is 98 miles from the Mexican border, at 9:00 

p.m. on February 15, 1989, in a 1984 Datsun Nissan Sentra. The 

Sentra displayed Arizona license plates and its rear windows and 

license plate were covered with dust. Agent Johnston was working 

at the Border Patrol checkpoint on I-25. There is a dirt road 

connecting with Highway 52 used by numerous vehicles containing 

smugglers to avoid the Las Cruces border patrol units, and which 

contains dust similar to that found on Mr. Miranda-Enriquez's car. 

Rec., vol. III, at 12. Highway 52 also is traveled extensively by 

tourists visiting a nearby lake. Id. at 24. There are dirt roads 

around the lake, and the dust on Mr. Miranda-Enriquez's car was of 

the same type as found on some of these dirt roads. Id. at 23. 

It is not unusual to see people driving from the lake with dust on 

their cars. Id. at 29. 

After Mr. Miranda-Enriquez tripped the sensor located on 

Highway 52, Agent Johnston drove to the intersection of Highway 85 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 6 
and Highway 52 and parked so that his headlights could shine perpendicularly toward the stop sign on Highway 52. Mr. MirandaEnriquez stopped at the intersection, did not turn his head, and 

proceeded south onto Highway 85. It is possible to survey the 

intersection for oncoming cars prior to stopping at this intersection, although it was Agent Johnston's opinion that "when you get 

up to the stop sign, you have to look." Id. at 31. Agent 

Johnston has worked at this checkpoint for 11 years, and has made 

two or three hundred arrests on Highway 52. At 3:00 a.m., the 

chances are "probably" fifty-fifty that a car traveling on Highway 

52 will contain a smuggler, although Agent Johnston did not know 

what the likelihood would be that a car would contain a smuggler 

at 9:00 p.m. Id. at 29-30. Agent Johnston would have stopped Mr. 

Miranda-Enriquez even if his car had displayed New Mexico license 

plates, or if there had been no dust on his car. Id. at 32-33. 

There was no testimony that Agent Johnston had received word 

that there had been recent illegal border crossings in the area, 

nor was there testimony that Agent Johnston thought that the 

Sentra contained concealed compartments or that it appeared to be 

heavily loaded. Mr. Miranda-Enriquez argues that all these facts 

and the rational inferences flowing from them do not amount to a 

basis for a reasonable suspicion to stop him for questioning under 

the Fourth Amendment. We agree. In fact, our decision in United 

States v. Monsisvais compels this conclusion. 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 7 
In Monsisvais, we held insufficient to support a reasonable 

suspicion factors similar to those surrounding the stop of Mr. 

Miranda-Enriquez. In that case, the stop occurred after a sensor 

alert on Highway 85, also at a point in close proximity to Truth 

or Consequences. The vehicle stopped was a pickup truck with a 

camper shell riding extremely low and traveling at 7:30 p.m. in 

February with Arizona license plates. Both parties agreed that 

Highway 85 could be used to bypass the checkpoint at Truth or 

Consequences. We found, however, that these facts failed to show 

"a basis for concluding that a vehicle's presence on Highway 85 at 

7:30 p.m. is at all unusual, much less that it is suggestive of 

criminal conduct." 907 F. 2d at 990-91. We also said the fact 

that the vehicle displayed Arizona plates was an insufficient 

ground upon which to conclude that it was any more likely to be 

transporting smugglers near Truth or Consequences than vehicles 

from other surrounding states. Id. at 991. We placed significance on the fact that the record was barren of information 

describing the legitimate traffic that might be expected to use 

Highway 85 during that time of day, and we were not willing to 

assume that its sole utility was to evade checkpoints. Here, on 

the other hand, we have direct evidence from the Agent himself 

that it is not unusual to encounter dust covered vehicles coming 

from the lake on Highway 25. Significantly, when questioned about 

the likelihood of smugglers on the road at 9:00 p.m., the Agent 

testified: "I don't know what the exact percentage would be." 

Rec., vol. III, at 29. Nevertheless, he admitted that "after dark 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 8 
we try to check as many as we can there." Id. at 30. Unlike Mr. 

Miranda-Enriquez's car, the vehicle in Monsisvais was heavily 

weighed down in the rear. In addition, there is much more 

evidence in our record than in Monsisvais to show that the route 

upon which Mr. Miranda-Enriquez traveled was legitimately used by 

tourists departing from the nearby lake. We agree with this 

court's recent admonition in United States v. Sanders, F.2d 

~-' No. 90-2216, slip op. at 12 (10th Cir. filed June~' 1991), 

that "[t]o claim suspicious circumstances based solely on time of 

day [2:30 a.m.] an individual chooses to travel risks labeling all 

who travel on what some feel is an unusual hour as suspicious." 

Finally, we attach little significance to the fact that Mr. 

Miranda-Enriquez did not turn his head at the intersection because 

it was possible to see oncoming cars before he reached the stop 

sign. Indeed, as for staring into headlights of a parked car at 

an intersection, it seems prudent for a driver's safety that it be 

avoided. 

In sum, we hold Agent Johnston's articulated suspicions 

unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Because there is no tenable argument that the search conducted after the illegal stop was 

sufficiently attenuated to purge it of the legal taint, we conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. The conviction is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-2191 Document: 01019667119 Date Filed: 08/12/1991 Page: 9