Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cr-01377/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cr-01377-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James William Tilden
Defendant
Linda Tilden
Defendant
United States of America
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.

JAMES WILLIAM TILDEN and

LINDA TILDEN,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 03-01377-TUC-RCC(BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

SUPPRESS

On September 24, 2003, a Superseding Indictment (Docket # 16) was filed against

Defendants James William Tilden and Linda Tilden concerning events that occurred on June

15, 2003. They were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, possession

with intent to distribute 100 to 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, and possession of a firearm in

relation to drug trafficking. On July 27, 2007, Defendant Linda Tilden filed a Motion to

Suppress the agents’ entry upon Defendants’ property (Docket # 47). Defendant James

William Tilden filed a Joinder on July 27, 2007 (Docket # 48) and on October 30, 2007, a

Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress regarding the search of

Defendants’ home (Docket # 59). On November 9, 2007, the Government filed an

Opposition regarding the search of Defendants’ home (Docket # 63) and a Response

regarding entry upon Defendants’ property (Docket # 64).

The matter came on for Evidentiary Hearing before the Court on January 17, 2008.

The Government called as witnesses U.S. Border Patrol Agents Jorge Gonzalez, Andrew

Case 4:03-cr-01377-RCC-BPV Document 80 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Scharnweber, and Darryl May. The Defendants called James William Tilden.

The Court, having considered the briefing, arguments, and evidence presented,

recommends that the District Judge, after his independent review and consideration, enter an

order DENYING Defendants’ Motions to Suppress.

FACTS

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jorge Gonzalez was on duty near Arivaca, Arizona, June

15, 2003. Agent Gonzalez was 10 air miles from the Mexican border, tracking foot sign on

a known smuggling trail. The trail forked north and east. There was no evidence presented

that the east fork leading to the Defendants’ property was also a known smuggling trail.

Agent Gonzalez did know that fresh foot sign existed on the east fork of the trail. The

foot sign was fresh, but not so much as to suggest the immediate presence of its makers. As

Agent Gonzalez was following the foot sign on the trail, he came upon a downed barbed wire

fence. He walked over the fence, following the footprints.

The agent claimed not to be aware of the fact that he was on private property. At any

rate, once he was up to 150 yards onto the property, he came to the end of the trail and

observed a structure (gazebo) on its side. To the right of the structure, he saw a cellar-like

construction containing what he believed to be bundles of marijuana.

This open cellar structure was 150 to 200 feet from a house. Between the house and

structure, there was a driveway and shrubbery that delineated the driveway. The effect of

the shrubbery was to separate the cellar and gazebo from the residence.

Agent Gonzalez encountered Defendant James William Tilden and arrested and

handcuffed him. Defendant Linda Tilden was called out of the house by Mr. Tilden,

whereafter she was also arrested and handcuffed. Agent Gonzalez, in the presence of his

partners, U.S. Border Patrol Agents Andrew Scharnweber and Darryl May, asked the

Defendants for permission to search. Both Defendants said, “Go ahead.” The operation

resulted in the discovery of 437.2 pounds of marijuana, bundled cash, a .38 caliber pistol, and

two 7.62 x 39mm caliber rifles.

The Defendants consented to the search of the house by a Border Patrol K-9 unit. No

Case 4:03-cr-01377-RCC-BPV Document 80 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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 -

written consents were obtained from the Defendants by the agents. During the search, the

Defendants were seated first under a mesquite tree and later on a couch located on the front

porch of the residence.

Mr. Tilden testified that he asked the agents why they were on his premises, did they

have a warrant, and if they had seen the “No Trespassing” signs. As to the latter two

questions, Agent Gonzalez responded no and that he did not need one (warrant). The

response to the why question, per Mr. Tilden, was that Gonzalez and his trainee were

following tracks to the neighbor’s house and the Tilden residence.

Mr. Tilden testified that he would not talk to the agents nor consent to a search

without a warrant and that 3 or 4 times he declined to provide a consent. Eventually, per Mr.

Tilden, the agents used a dog to search the area.

DISCUSSION

I. Open Fields and Curtilage

Border Patrol Agent Gonzalez, upon his entry on the Tilden property, was on what is

known in the law as an “open field”. The issue becomes whether, at the time of his discovery

of the marijuana, he had entered the curtilage of the premises.

If Agent Gonzalez discovered the marijuan in or from an open field in plain view of

all, the Defendants are afforded no Fourth Amendment protection. Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S.

170 (1984). In this case, Agent Gonzalez was traveling along a distinct trail leading towards

the Tilden home. The agents’ presence as such establishes what trails suggest, i.e. humans

traverse this property along the trail’s route. No one has an expectation of privacy along an

access route.

In addition, the marijuana was observed in plain view from the agents’ position at the

end of the trail near the house. Harris v. State, 390 U.S. 234 (1968). At this point, the agents

had a duty to seize the contraband or risk its loss.

The layout of the premises supports a conclusion that the gazebo area was outside the

curtilage of the home. First, the area around the house was not enclosed by any fence. The

only barrier near the house was the shrubbery south of the house and driveway, but between

Case 4:03-cr-01377-RCC-BPV Document 80 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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 -

these and the gazebo area. From the perspective of the trail, the shrubbery created a privacy

shield for the house, but not the gazebo. From the perspective of the house, there is no sense

in creating a privacy shield for the gazebo area that opens out onto an open field. U.S. v.

Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

Even assuming the gazebo area is within the protected curtilage, the Fourth

Amendment does not extend its protection to objects readily identifiable as contraband which

are placed out for one and all to see.

Unlike U.S. v. Romero-Bustamante, 337 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2003), Title 8 U.S.C. §

1357(a)(3) permits access to private (remote) lands, which authorized Agent Gonzalez’

presence on the Tilden property. In this case, Agent Gonzalez could very well suspect either

drug or alien smuggling.

II. Consent

Defendant James William Tilden testified that neither he nor his wife consented to the

search of their property. Three agents testified that the Defendants both consented. The

Court believes the agents, but not because they are agents, but rather because they came

across as sincere and truthful. In the case of Agent Gonzalez, the Court found him credible

as to consent because of his earlier testimony about the tracks on the trail. He could have

easily said the tracks were very fresh. Instead, he testified that the tracks appeared to have

been made within the last 24 hours.

By way of contrast, the Court found it hard to believe Mr. Tilden’s testimony that

Agent Gonzalez said the Sheriff had to be present in order for Gonzalez to search the

premises. Then Agent Gonzalez allegedly said they would not wait, to which the Tildens

said they would wait, which all did. After an hour, the agents searched. Hard to believe.

The Defendants consented to the search.

CONCLUSION

It is the recommendation of this Court that the District Judge, after his independent

review and consideration, enter an Order DENYING Defendants’ Motions to Suppress

(Docket # 47 and # 59).

Case 4:03-cr-01377-RCC-BPV Document 80 Filed 02/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the parties have ten (10) days from the date of

this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any objections filed should be filed as CR 03-

01377-TUC-RCC.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2008.

Case 4:03-cr-01377-RCC-BPV Document 80 Filed 02/28/08 Page 5 of 5