Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02232/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02232-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Loya-Dominguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

u· FILED 

mted S:ates Court of AppeaJs 

f,.nch Citcuir 

Sfp 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) Nos. 89-2232 

ALBERTO LOYA-DOMINGUEZ and 

SOTERO QUINONEZ-LEDEZMA, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

) 89-2246 

) (D.C. Nos. 89-158JB-01 & 02) 

) (District of New Mexico) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and BALDOCK, 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. 

These two cases were ordered consolidated because they both 

raise a single issue challenging the same search. The appeal 

follows a plea of guilty in which the right to appeal the denial 

of the motion to suppress was properly preserved. 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2232 Document: 010110041918 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 1 
While stated somewhat differently in the briefs, the determinative issue in this case is whether the officer making the 

traffic stop could articulate sufficient facts together with 

rational inferences from those facts that would justify the stop 

and the ensuing request for consent. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 21 

(1968); Nicacio v. INS., 797 F.2d 700, 705 (9th Cir. 1985). During the traffic stop, the defendant consented to a search that 

resulted in the discovery and seizure of marijuana. 

The essential facts supporting the trial court determination 

are that the agent who made the stop had been monitoring the areas 

two miles north of the border where alien smuggling commonly 

occurred. No traffic had passed the particular area between midnight and 6:00 a.m. At 6:00 a.m. he received a radio dispatch 

that a "sensor" had been tripped. These are devices designed to 

notify monitors that an automobile has passed the area. Relying 

on his past experience, the officer assumed that the vehicle had 

entered on Highway 9 at an unknown location somewhere between his 

position and Columbus, New Mexico. He proceeded eastward on 

Highway 9 in order to catch up with the vehicle. When he caught 

up with the vehicle, he noted its license number and did a radio 

check of its registration. He determined that the vehicle was 

registered to someone living in Albuquerque. Again, relying on 

his past experience, the officer concluded that the vehicle's 

entry on Highway 9, the direction of travel for an Albuquerqueregistered automobile, and the time of day provided a basis for a 

stop to check for alien smuggling. Upon the stop, the officer 

made inquiry of the citizenship of the individuals and observed 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2232 Document: 010110041918 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 2 
the usual marijuana profile--nervousness and the strong odor of 

air freshener frequently used to mask the order of narcotics. The 

officer then requested consent to search. Consent was granted, 

and the offending drugs were discovered. 

The initial stop is the only thing seriously challenged on 

appeal. We must review the adequacy of the basis for the stop in 

light of the totality of the circumstances. United States v. 

Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 417 (1981). While not much is required, 

certainly something more than mere suspicion is required to make 

such a stop. In the context of location, traffic patterns, direction of travel, and vehicle size and registration, we are satisfied that the officer was justified in stopping the vehicle to 

make inquiry about the identity of the driver. It is sufficient 

that an experienced officer under the circumstances was justified 

in making the brief stop to determine whether the car contained 

smuggled aliens. The stop being valid and the ensuing observations being sufficient, the request to search was valid. We 

therefore conclude that this was a consensual search, and the 

trial court properly refused to suppress the evidence in this 

case. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2232 Document: 010110041918 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 3