Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02021/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Joseph Jessie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci::-ruit 

NUV · 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2021 

JERRY JOSEPH JESSIE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-339SC-01) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before MOORE, SETH, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

This appeal is from the district court's denial of a motion 

to suppress evidence seized from defendant's truck after an 

initial stop at an Inunigration and Naturalization Service 

checkpont north of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Defendant appeals on 

the grounds that the district court erred in finding that the 

secondary detention of defendant by the Border Patrol officers was 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2021 Document: 010110047483 Date Filed: 11/02/1990 Page: 1 
' I 

based on specific, objective, and articulable facts sufficient to 

justify the search of the truck. We affirm. 

Defendant was stopped at a routine Immigration and 

Naturalization Service checkpoint north of Las Cruces, New Mexico 

on Interstate Highway 25. The Border Patrol agent observed a 

Texas license plate on the front of the vehicle. After asking 

questions regarding defendant's citizenship, the agent went to the 

rear of the truck to determine whether the license plate on the 

back of the truck matched the plate on the front. When the agent 

went to the back of the truck he smelled marijuana. He looked 

underneath the vehicle and saw what he believed to be a 

compartment underneath the flatbed. The vehicle was then referred 

to a secondary inspection unit where a trained dog was called to 

perform a canine sniff of the vehicle. The dog alerted to the 

area under the flatbed portion of the vehicle. The agent found a 

compartment beneath the truck which contained 134 pounds of 

marijuana. This is the evidence that defendant seeks to suppress. 

When reviewing the district court's determination on a motion 

to suppress, we will reverse the findings of fact only when they 

are clearly erroneous. United States Y.!.. Butler, 904 F.2d 1482, 

1484 (10th Cir. 1990). 

We cannot say that the district court in this case was 

clearly erroneous in finding that the officer's brief foray to the 

back of the pickup to match license plates exceeded the 

permissible scope of the initial stop to determine citizenship. 

It is settled that a stop to determine citizenship and brief 

questioning connected therewith is justified under the Fourth 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2021 Document: 010110047483 Date Filed: 11/02/1990 Page: 2 
Amendment. United States Y..!.. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 566 

(1976); United States Y..!.. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888, 890-91 (10th Cir. 

1986) {questions regarding suspicious circumstances also allowed). 

The limited nature of the further inquiry by the officer in this 

case when he went to the back of the truck simply to verify a 

license plate does not exceed the appropriate limitations on the 

scope of the stop. See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 566; United 

States Y..!.. Johnson, 895 F.2d 6.93, 696 (10th Cir. 1990). At that 

point the officer smelled marijuana and observed the hidden 

compartment. These two factors provided ample articulable facts 

upon which to base the secondary detention and the canine sniff. 

See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 563; United States Y..!.. Arango, No. 

89-4084, slip op. at 12-13 {10th Cir. Aug. 28, 1990). We have 

held that a canine sniff during an otherwise lawful detention is 

not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. United 

States Y..!.. Morales-Zamora, Nos. 89-2172, 89-2244, slip op. at 7 

{10th Cir. Sept. 6, 1990). After the dog alerted to the 

compartment in the pickup, the search by the officer was supported 

by probable cause. Id. at 13; United States Y..!.. Stone, 866 F.2d 

359, 364 {10th Cir. 1989). The district court did not err in 

refusing to suppress the evidence that was seized during that 

search. We AFFIRM. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2021 Document: 010110047483 Date Filed: 11/02/1990 Page: 3