Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cr-00519/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cr-00519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cruz Margarita Sanchez-Avitia
Defendant
Ignacio Tapia-Moreno
Defendant
USA
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.

Cruz Margarita Sanchez-Avitia,

Ignacio Tapia-Moreno, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 13-0519-TUC-JGZ (LAB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The District Court referred this case to the Magistrate Judge for a hearing on the

defendant’s motions to suppress. The defendants, Cruz Margarita Sanchez-Avitia and

Ignacio Tapia-Moreno, argue that their statements were taken in violation of Miranda and

involuntarily. (Doc. 22). They also argue that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated

when they were unlawfully detained at the United States Border Patrol (USBP) checkpoint

on March 1, 2013. (Doc. 23). Defendant Tapia-Moreno filed a motion for joinder in

Defendant Sanchez-Avitia’s motions (Doc. 43) and a Supplement to Defendant’s Notice of

Joinder (Doc. 53).

An evidentiary hearing was held on February 20, 2014, March 10, 2014, and concluded

on March 12, 2014. On February 20, 2014, USBP Agents Edward Seed, Derek Merriman,

Eric Griego, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent (SA) Ricardo

Ramirez testified. On March 10, 2014, HSI SA Ricardo Ramirez completed his testimony

and HSI Intelligence Research Specialist (Specialist) Carlos Guido, USBP Agent Hector

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 1 of 16
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 -

Lopez, and Defendant Sanchez-Avitia testified. Government’s Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 and

Defense Exhibits 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 were admitted.

Charge:

Defendants Sanchez-Avitia and Tapia-Moreno are charged by indictment with conspiracy

to transport illegal aliens for profit, and three counts of transportation of illegal aliens for

profit, in violation of Title 8 United States Code §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)

and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i). (Doc. 7).

Motions to Suppress:

The defendants argue that they were in custody when their initial statements were taken

without Miranda warnings, and that their statements, before and after Miranda warnings,

were involuntary. They assert that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their

detention was prolonged without probable cause, beyond the brief, initial questioning

permitted at an immigration checkpoint. The defendants move to suppress all statements,

including post-Miranda statements, and all evidence obtained as a result of the vehicle stop

as the fruit of the unlawful seizure.

The Court concludes that the defendants were not in custody for purposes of Miranda

when their initial statements were taken. Their pre- and post-Miranda statements were

voluntary. Their detention and questioning at the checkpoint were legal. Probable cause was

established prior to their arrests. The statements and evidence should not be suppressed and

are admissible at trial.

EVIDENCE:

Edward Seed

Edward Seed testified that he has been a U.S. Border Patrol Agent for 6 years. On 3/1/13

at about 4:50 p.m., Agent Seed was working in primary inspection at the immigration

checkpoint on Highway 90. A gray Ford Explorer with 7 occupants approached the

checkpoint. Defendant Tapia-Moreno was the driver. Agent Seed identified Defendant

Sanchez-Avitia as the front passenger. There were two teenagers in the middle seat and three

younger children in the back seat. Agent Seed questioned Tapia-Moreno regarding his legal

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 2 of 16
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 -

status and also asked if the five children were United States (US) citizens. Agent Seed

thought is was odd that Tapia-Moreno turned his body toward the agent, used big hand

gestures and turned around quickly to look at the children when asked about them. Agent

Seed asked for the children’s birth certificates. Tapia-Moreno became more nervous. Agent

Seed sent the vehicle to secondary inspection based on the odd behavior and also because

there was a lookout on the vehicle, which the agents learned about at muster just before their

shifts began.

Secondary inspection is about 50 yards away from the primary lanes. Agents Seed and

Merriman walked over to meet the vehicle at secondary.

During a conversation that lasted a couple of minutes, Agent Seed asked Tapia-Moreno

for the names and ages of the children and where each was seated in the vehicle. TapiaMoreno hesitated. Sanchez-Avitia answered for him. Tapia-Moreno was asked to step out

of the vehicle and was separated from the other occupants. Agent Merriman was present.

The tone of the conversation was casual, occurred in an open area, not in an enclosed

structure, and lasted for about 2 minutes.

Agent Seed then spoke with Sanchez-Avitia about Tapia-Moreno and the children. Agent

Griego was present. The conversation was casual and lasted about 2 minutes. SanchezAvitia was either still in the vehicle or just outside of it. Sanchez-Avitia and Tapia-Moreno

gave inconsistent statements. Agent Seed spoke again with Tapia-Moreno and then with

Sanchez-Avitia for about a minute or two each. Sanchez-Avitia gave the agents permission

to speak with the children. Both defendants were arrested. 

Agent Seed did not advise either defendant of his or her Miranda rights. The defendants

were not free to leave as there was an ongoing investigation.

Derek Merriman

Derek Merriman testified that he has been a U.S. Border Patrol Agent for 3 years. On

 3/1/13 he was assisting with primary inspection at the checkpoint on Highway 90 when a

gray Ford Expedition approached. The vehicle was at primary for a minute or two before it

was sent to secondary. Agents Merriman and Seed walked to secondary, about 50 feet away,

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 3 of 16
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 -

following the vehicle. Agent Merriman watched Agent Seed speak with the driver and

passenger. Agent Seed looked at the children’s birth certificates and then gave them to

Agent Merriman at secondary. Agent Seed asked the driver to get out of the vehicle. Agent

Merriman asked the driver to walk with him. He identified the driver as Defendant TapiaMoreno. Agent Merriman spoke with Tapia-Moreno for about 5 minutes in a normal tone.

Tapia-Moreno was nervous, avoiding eye contact, unsure of his answers, and “dancing”

around. Agent Seed spoke with the passengers.

The agents shared the information they gathered, including that the teenage boy stated the

children in the back seat were not his family. Tapia-Moreno was left alone while the two

agents consulted with each other. Agent Merriman then confronted Tapia-Moreno with the

information. Tapia-Moreno admitted he did not know the three youngest children and that

they were illegal. At 5:09 p.m. Tapia-Moreno was handcuffed, arrested, read his rights, and

taken to a holding cell. Specialist Griego witnessed the rights. Tapia-Moreno said he

understood his rights. No further questions were asked. Specialist Griego then read

Sanchez-Avitia her rights while she sat in a service vehicle.

There were a total of six to seven uniformed, armed agents in the area, although not all

were visible.

Eric Griego

Eric Griego testified that he has been a USBP Agent for just over 2 1⁄2 years. On 3/1/13

there was a lookout for a Ford Explorer that was suspected of transporting undocumented

children. Agent Griego spotted the vehicle driving north while he was driving south on

Highway 90. He was called back to the checkpoint to assist with an investigation. When he

arrived, he saw a similar vehicle in secondary inspection with Agents Seed and Merriman

nearby. Agent Seed was on the passenger side. Agent Merriman was on the driver’s side.

After being briefed by Agent Seed, Agent Griego was asked to speak with the passenger,

whom he identified as Defendant Sanchez-Avitia.

Agent Griego asked Sanchez-Avitia to get out of the vehicle and sit on a bench near the

passenger side. She was upset and acted as if she did not want to talk. She turned away,

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 4 of 16
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 -

made no eye contact, and gave brief answers, but she did answer questions. Agent Griego

had the three birth certificates for the children. Sanchez-Avitia correctly answered

biographical questions about the children. When Agent Griego saw Agent Merriman arrest

Tapia-Moreno, Agent Griego arrested Sanchez-Avitia, handcuffing her and placing her in

a Border Patrol car. Agent Griego read Miranda rights to her at 5:24 p.m. with another agent

present. No more questions were asked. 

Ricardo Ramirez

Ricardo Ramirez testified that he has been a DHS HSI Agent for over 5 years. Prior to that

he was a USBP Agent for 12 years. On 3/1/13 at about 5:00 p.m. he was asked to assist with

a vehicle at the checkpoint. He was told by BPA Lopez that there may be undocumented

aliens in a vehicle. This was part of an ongoing investigation of an organization suspected

of transporting undocumented minor children. Agent Ramirez identified Tapia-Moreno as

the person he interviewed after reading him his Miranda warnings, in a cell, in the trailer at

the checkpoint. Agents Lopez was also in the cell with Tapia-Moreno. Agent Ramirez read

aloud and explained in Spanish Exhibit 1, the rights form, line by line. He asked TapiaMoreno if he had any questions and if he understood and would waive his rights. TapiaMoreno signed the written waiver form. An interview was conducted, lasting about 20 to 25

minutes.

Agent Ramirez interviewed Sanchez-Avitia in another trailer, sitting at a desk, not in an

enclosed cell. Agent Lopez and Specialist Guido were also present. Agent Ramirez read

Sanchez-Avitia her rights in the same manner as he did for Tapia-Moreno. At SanchezAvitia’s request, the interview and advice of rights were conducted in Spanish. Agent

Ramirez is a native Spanish speaker. The interview lasted about 30 to 35 minutes and

included questions about identifying people in photographs. Sanchez-Avitia was very

helpful. She said she wanted to help. She admitted to numerous acts of alien smuggling.

Agent Lopez told Sanchez-Avitia to be honest and tell the truth because it would look better,

but he told her it was not in his power to help her. He told Sanchez-Avitia that he would

include her cooperation in his report. Sanchez-Avitia was released that night.

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 5 of 16
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

- 6 -

Agent Ramirez did not witness any agent speak to Sanchez-Avitia about cooperating or

about taking the children home if she cooperated. Toward the end of the interview, agents

spoke among themselves about calling Child Protective Services to take custody of the

children, and it is possible that Sancehz-Avitia overheard that conversation.

Carlos Guido, Jr.

Carlos Guido testified that he has been an Intelligence Research Specialist for

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for over three years. Prior to that he worked

for the Douglas Police Department for 25 years. On 3/1/13 he was called at about 5:00 p.m.

to assist with an investigation at the checkpoint. When he arrived, he spoke with Agents

Juarez, Ramirez, and Lopez regarding possible child alien smuggling. 

Specialist Guido interviewed Sanchez-Avitia after Agent Ramirez read her the Miranda

warnings in Spanish. He identified her in court. The interview lasted 45 to 90 minutes and

was conducted after Sanchez-Avitia said she understood her rights and signed the waiver of

rights form. Specialist Guido was only absent from the interview for 3 to 5 minutes. While

he was present, Sanchez-Avitia never asked for a lawyer nor did she hesitate to answer

questions. The tone of the interview was comfortable and her answers were direct. The

questions were asked primarily by Agents Ramirez and Lopez but Specialist Guido also

asked some questions.

The interview took place in a mobile office at the Border Patrol checkpoint with three

agents present. There may have been other agents in the area who were in uniforms and

armed. The agents conducting the interview were in plain clothes and armed, but there was

no testimony whether the firearms were visible. Specialist Guido brought a series of

photographs to show Sanchez-Avitia. He always brings them when questioning suspected

child smugglers. Specialist Guido did not speak with Agents Seed, Merriman, or Griego and

did not know if Sanchez-Avitia had been advised of or had invoked her rights. Specialist

Guido does not record interviews. He usually takes notes, which he thinks he did in this

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 6 of 16
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

1

Later in the hearing, AUSA DeJoe stated that Specialist Guido informed him that he

did not take notes.

- 7 -

case, but he is not sure what he did with the notes.1

Specialist Guido first heard of Sanchez-Avitia 12 months earlier in relation to a criminal

investigation into child smuggling. He had some information prior to the interview which

suggested that Sanchez-Avitia had transported undocumented children in the United States.

Sanchez-Avitia was an investigative lead, not yet confirmed as a suspect.

Hector Lopez

Hector Lopez testified that he has been a Border Patrol Agent for over 10 years. On

 3/1/13 he was working with HSI as a liaison with ICE. At about 5:00 p.m. Agent Juarez

called and asked him to assist with an alien smuggling investigation at the checkpoint. When

Agent Lopez arrived, he saw agents questioning the occupants of a vehicle that was pulled

over. Agent Lopez identified both defendants in court. Tapia-Moreno was with the vehicle

at secondary. Sanchez-Avitia was on the other side of the road.

When Border Patrol Agents finished their questioning, Agent Juarez was notified that he

could begin his interviews. Agent Juarez told Agent Lopez that Border Patrol was finished

with its investigation. Agent Juarez was directing the agents in their investigation. The first

interview was of Tapia-Moreno and was conducted in Spanish in the Border Patrol mobile

building in a detention cell. Other agents were in the building but in separate areas. Agent

Ramirez read Tapia-Moreno his rights in Spanish. Tapia-Moreno said he understood his

rights and signed the waiver form. (Ex. 1). Agent Ramirez asked the questions. The

interview lasted about 40 minutes. Tapia-Moreno did not ask for a lawyer or to stop the

questioning. The tone of the interview was pleasant and comfortable.

Sanchez-Avitia was advised of her rights, said she understood them and signed the waiver

form. (Ex. 2). Her interview lasted about 40 minutes. She was not in a holding cell. She did

not ask for a lawyer or to stop the questioning. The tone of the interview was pleasant and

comfortable. Specialist Guido and Agent Lopez were present while Agent Ramirez asked

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 7 of 16
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

- 8 -

questions. Agent Lopez took notes as requested by Agent Ramirez. 

Agent Lopez did not check with the other Border Patrol Agents before the interviews

began. He did not know if the defendants were previously Mirandized. He is not sure if

Sanchez-Avitia was handcuffed. He did not hear any agent tell Sanchez-Avitia anything

about CPS or that it would be in her best interest to cooperate.

Cruz Margarita Sanchez-Avitia

Cruz Margarita Sanchez-Avitia testified that Ignacio Tapia-Moreno has been her partner

for 13 years. They have five children. Jocelyn Avitia is 17 years old. Manuel Avitia is 13

years old. Cecilia Tapia is 12 years old. Camila Tapia is 9 years old, and Carina Tapia is 5

years old. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for

17 years.

On 3/1/13 Ms. Sanchez-Avitia was in a Ford Expedition traveling from Sierra Vista, AZ

with Mr. Tapia-Moreno driving. Jocelyn and Manuel Avitia were in the vehicle along with

three other children, ages 5, 9 and 12. The vehicle was stopped at the immigration

checkpoint at about 4:20 p.m. There were many officers there. The vehicle’s occupants

showed their identification documents to the officers, including Agent Seed. They were told

to open the windows in the back and were asked who was in the back. They were asked if

the children were U.S. citizens. Mr. Tapia-Moreno answered that the girls were his

daughters and the children were all U.S. citizens. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia did not speak to Agent

Seed.

The agents sent the vehicle to secondary inspection. There the agents asked both

defendants questions while they were still in the vehicle. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia told the agents

that the children were U.S. citizens. She was asked for and provided Agent Seed with the

children’s birth certificates. After about 15 minutes of questions Mr. Tapia-Moreno was

asked to get out of the vehicle. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia was then asked to get out of the vehicle.

She was not able to see where Mr. Tapia-Moreno was. She was out of the vehicle for about

1⁄2 hour while Agents Seed and Griego questioned her. Agent Griego questioned Ms.

Sanchez-Avitia in Spanish about the children’s ages, names and places of birth, which she

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 8 of 16
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

- 9 -

answered. She was also asked where the girls were from and who their parents were. Ms.

Sanchez-Avitia said she did not want to talk or answer questions. She had given Agent Seed

the birth certificates at secondary inspection while she was still in the vehicle. 

Agent Griego did not tell Ms. Sanchez-Avitia she was under arrest. Agent Seed said she

was there because the girls were not theirs. The agents did not advise her of her rights. She

was told that Mr. Tapia-Moreno had talked. She was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car

where she waited for 20 to 30 minutes. Agent Ramirez then approached her and said he

would read her rights to her. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia asked about the children and Agent

Ramirez told her the family would be fine. He told her that it would be better for her and the

family to speak to the agents if she was involved in this. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia decided to

speak with the agents for her family’s sake.

Agent Ramirez removed the handcuffs and read her rights. Ms. Sanchez-Avitia

understood a little of her rights. She doesn’t remember if she was advised of her right to an

attorney, but she was not told she could consult with an attorney, although she knew that she

could. She was advised that she could remain silent. She remembers signing the waiver of

rights form and acknowledged that Agent Ramirez explained everything to her. She asked

about whether she could stop answering questions at any time, and Agent Ramirez said she

could. She was taken from the car to the trailer. She believes she was questioned from 6:00

p.m. until 10:00 p.m. but is not sure. Agents Lopez, Ramirez and Specialist Guido were

present during the interview. There was a time where she was alone with Specialist Guido.

He said they were going to take Ms. Sanchez-Avitia’s residency papers from her immediately

and they would take the children. He explained that if she talked, CPS would not take the

children.

Ms. Sanchez-Avitia told Specialist Guido and Agent Ramirez that she did not want to

speak any more when she was shown the photographs. Agent Ramirez reminded her that she

had promised to tell the truth and she couldn’t stop the interview when she wanted to because

they needed to know everything. Twice Ms. Sanchez-Avitia told the agents she didn’t want

to continue to speak with them. Once was when they asked her how long she had been

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 9 of 16
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

- 10 -

smuggling children. She was told that if she didn’t answer the questions then the family

would not be able to leave together. She continued to answer questions. At 10:00 p.m., after

four hours of interrogation, she was released with her family and allowed to go home.

On cross-examination Ms. Sanchez-Avitia acknowledged that she knows she will lose her

papers because of her involvement in this incident. She admitted that she lied to Agent Seed

when she said the younger children were hers and when she provided birth certificates that

do not belong to the children.

DISCUSSION:

The defendants concede that the original stop of the vehicle at the Border Patrol

checkpoint and questioning of the driver, Tapia-Moreno, and front passenger, SanchezAvitia, was a lawful immigration inspection. They challenge the decision to send the vehicle

to secondary inspection and the length and manner of questioning. They argue that the

defendants were in custody for purposes of Miranda at the moment they were sent to

secondary inspection. Sanchez-Avitia argues that her Miranda waiver was involuntary and

that she invoked her rights when she was initially hesitant to answer questions and did not

answer one question. She claims that her statement was involuntary because the agents

threatened to call Child Protective Services (CPS) to take her children and warned her that

she would lose her lawful permanent residence status if she was arrested for alien smuggling.

CUSTODY DETERMINATION, MIRANDA:

The court concludes the defendants were not in custody for Miranda purposes until they

were handcuffed and formally arrested.

A custodial suspect’s post-arrest statements given in response to interrogation are only

admissible in the government’s case-in-chief if the statements are given after a knowing and

intelligent waiver of the suspect’s Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-

79 (1966). However, the obligation to “administer Miranda warnings attaches . . . ‘only

where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him “in

custody.”’” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994), quoting Oregon v.

Mathianson, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977). To determine whether a person is “in custody” under

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 10 of 16
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

- 11 -

Miranda, “a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but

‘the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a “formal arrest or restraint on freedom

of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’” Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322,

citation omitted. There are a number of scenarios where a person is “seized” by law

enforcement for purposes of the Fourth Amendment but is not in custody for purposes of

Miranda, although he is not free to leave. A traffic stop, a Terry stop-and-frisk, and a border

inspection are all examples. U.S. v. Butler, 249 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2001), citations

omitted.

Factors to be considered in determining whether a reasonable person would believe he was

in custody include, (1) the language used to summon the individual; (2) the extent to which

the individual is confronted with evidence of guilt; (3) the physical surroundings of the

interrogation: (4) the duration of the detention; and (5) the degree of pressure applied to

detain the individual. United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting United

States v. Hayden, 260 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 1117 (2002)

Other factors may be relevant or dispositive of the inquiry. Id. 

In looking at the “totality of the circumstances,” the Court notes first that the defendants

voluntarily approached the checkpoint knowing they would come into contact with federal

agents and would be subject to questioning. When they were referred to secondary

inspection, Mr. Tapia-Moreno was driving and still in control of the vehicle while the agents

walked behind it. When they reached secondary, the defendants were asked to step out of

the vehicle and were separated from each other and the children. Tapia-Moreno was left

alone for a short time, unrestrained, while the agents conferred. Sanchez-Avitia sat on a

bench next to the vehicle and gave permission to the agents to speak with the children. The

first factor supports a finding that the defendants were not in custody for Miranda purposes

until formal arrest.

Neither defendant was confronted with evidence of guilt until just before formal arrest.

At this point, Tapia-Moreno was told by Agent Merriman that Manuel Avitia stated that the

girls were not part of his family. Tapia-Moreno admitted the children were not his and were

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 11 of 16
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

- 12 -

illegal. He was handcuffed, at which time he was arrested and clearly in custody. 

The agents informed Sanchez-Avitia of the inconsistencies between her answers and

Tapia-Moreno’s answers, but she was not confronted with specific evidence of guilt until

later when she was told that Tapia-Moreno had confessed. This factor also supports a finding

that the defendants were not in custody until their formal arrest.

The duration of detention was about 2 minutes at primary inspection. At secondary

inspection, the defendants were questioned together in their vehicle for a couple of minutes.

Agent Merriman spoke with Tapia-Moreno alone for about 5 minutes. Agent Seed spoke

with Sanchez-Avitia for about 2 minutes. He then spoke with Tapia-Moreno for a minute

or two and questioned Sanchez-Avitia for another couple of minutes. From the time the

vehicle initially approached the checkpoint until the defendants were handcuffed and

arrested, about 20 minutes passed. The duration of the detention supports a finding that the

defendants were not in custody until their formal arrest.

The defendants were initially questioned at primary inspection while they were in their

vehicle. They were referred to secondary inspection, approximately 50 yards away, where

they were briefly questioned again while still in their vehicle. Once they were removed from

the vehicle, Tapia-Moreno was walked about 20 yards back toward primary inspection.

Sanchez-Avitia was seated on a bench near the vehicle. They were outside, not in an

enclosed area, not physically restrained and within public view. This factor supports a

finding that the defendants were not in custody until formal arrest.

The degree of pressure applied to detain the individuals before they were handcuffed and

formally arrested was not excessive. The defendants chose to travel this route, knowing they

would encounter a checkpoint. Once at the checkpoint, they were asked routine questions

and then asked to proceed to secondary inspection. They were asked to exit the vehicle and

were separated from each other. At this point, they were in the presence of uniformed, armed

agents who had possession of their documents and their children’s birth certificates. 

The degree of pressure experienced by the defendants was not significantly different from

that experienced at a routine traffic stop where a uniformed, armed police officer asks a

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 12 of 16
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

- 13 -

driver to get out of the vehicle and takes the driver’s license to run a computer check. The

degree of pressure factor supports a finding that the defendants were out of custody until

arrest.

The court concludes that the defendants were not in custody for Miranda purposes until

they were formally arrested. The government’s failure to give Miranda warning before that

time does not make the defendants’ statements inadmissible.

INVOCATION OF MIRANDA:

Sanchez-Avitia further argues that she invoked her Miranda rights during this initial

questioning period by her demonstrated reluctance to cooperate. 

Agent Griego testified that he could tell Sanchez-Avitia did not want to answer questions

because she turned away, made no eye contact and gave brief answers. However, she

answered nearly all the questions asked. 

A defendant’s reluctance or even silence in the face of questioning does not as a matter

of law invoke the right to remain silent. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 382, 130

S.Ct. 2250, 2260 (2010). Neither does it trigger in the agents a duty to end the interrogation

or ask questions to clarify whether the accused wants to invoke his or her Miranda rights.

Id. In this case, Sanchez-Avitia did not say she wanted to remain silent or that she did not

want to talk to the police. She did not invoke her rights under Miranda by her reluctance to

answer the agents’ questions. 

VOLUNTARINESS:

Sanchez-Avitia further argues her Miranda waiver and subsequent statements were made

involuntarily because she was threatened with losing her legal status in the United States and

with losing her children to CPS. Although Defendant Tapia-Moreno joined in Defendant

Sanchez-Avitia’s motions, he did not argue that his statements were involuntary. 

An incriminating statement obtained during a custodial interrogation is only admissible

if there has been a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights. Miranda

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 13 of 16
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

- 14 -

v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). The courts look at the totality of the circumstances

to determine if a Miranda waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. U.S. v. RodriguezPreciado, 399 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The waiver is voluntary

if it is the result of free choice and not because of coercion or promises. Id. at 1128. The

waiver is knowing and intelligent if the defendant was fully aware of the nature of the right

he was waiving and the consequences of his decision to abandon the right. U.S. v. RodriguezPreciado, supra. at 1127. The government has the burden to prove a valid waiver by a

preponderance of the evidence in order to overcome the presumption against a waiver.

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168 (1986).

Involuntariness will not be found unless the government engages in behavior sufficiently

severe to overbear the will of the defendant. Even where agents promise to inform the

prosecutor of cooperation and to recommend leniency to induce a confession, such tactics

do not establish involuntariness. U.S. v. Coleman, 208 F.3d 786, 791 (9th Cir. 2000); U.S.

v. Leon Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1988). Accusing a suspect of lying also does

not render a confession involuntary. U.S. v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1987).

 There is no disagreement that once Sanchez-Avitia was handcuffed and arrested she was

advised of and waived her Miranda rights. She signed a written waiver (Ex. 2) which states

in Spanish that she waived her rights freely and voluntarily without threat or intimidation or

promises. 

At some point, there was a discussion among the agents about calling CPS to take custody

of the children, and Sanchez-Avitia may have heard that. It is unclear if the agents spoke

about the fact that Sanchez-Avitia would lose her legal residency in the United States. Agent

Ramirez told Sanchez-Avitia that it would look better if she told the truth, and he would note

her cooperation in his report. He told her he had no ability to help her directly. 

Based on the totality of the circumstance, the court concludes that the government’s

behavior was not so coercive as to render Sanchez-Avitia’s Miranda waiver or her

subsequent statements involuntary.

Sanchez-Avitia further argues that at some point after Miranda was read, she invoked her

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 14 of 16
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

- 15 -

right to remain silent by failing to answer one of the agents’ questions. As the court

explained above, however, the invocation of Miranda must be done unambiguously. 

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 382, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2260 (2010); U.S. v. Lorenzo,

570 F.2d 294, 298 (9th Cir. 1978).

FOURTH AMENDMENT:

The defendants further argue that all statements and evidence in this case should be

suppressed because they were taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free

from unreasonable search and seizure. 

The defendants first argue their rights were violated when they were referred to secondary

inspection without reasonable suspicion. The court does not agree.

While a vehicle stop at an immigration checkpoint is a “seizure”, stops and questioning

at a checkpoint may be made without any individualized suspicion for Fourth Amendment

purposes. U.S. v. Martinez-Fuente, 428 U.S. 543, 556, and 562 (1976). A vehicle may be

referred to secondary inspection for further questioning without individualized suspicion of

criminal activity. Id.

The defendants argue their extended questioning at secondary was unreasonable. The

court concludes that while their detention at secondary was extended somewhat, the agents

had reasonable suspicion to justify the scope of the detention. 

A brief detention at a Border Patrol checkpoint is Constitutional, even if it extends beyond

the time required for immigration inspection, if there is articulable suspicion or a minimal

showing of suspicion of criminal activity.” U.S. v. Taylor, 934 F.2d 218, 220-21 (9th Cir.

1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074 (1992). Erratic behavior or increasing nervousness is a

sufficient basis. U.S. v. Wilson, 7 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 1993).

The agents testified that Tapia-Moreno behaved strangely and was increasingly nervous.

Both defendants gave inconsistent answers to the agents’ questions. Within about 20 minutes

after the original stop of the vehicle at primary inspection, the teen-aged son stated that the

girls in the vehicle were not his family. Shortly after the vehicle was referred to secondary

inspection, the agents developed reasonable suspicion and then probable cause to arrest the

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 15 of 16
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

- 16 -

defendants. The defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

CONCLUSION:

In considering the “totality of the circumstances”, the Court finds that prior to the

defendants being handcuffed and formally arrested, they were not in custody for purposes

of Miranda. The agents were not required to read the defendants their rights prior to asking

questions at the immigration checkpoint. Once the defendants were taken into custody, they

were advised of their rights. All statements were given in accordance with Miranda.

Tapia-Moreno did not challenge the voluntariness of his statements. Sanchez-Avitia’s

statements were made voluntarily. She was advised of and waived her rights voluntarily.

There is no evidence of coercive police activity or any indication that Sanchez-Avitia

attempted to invoke her rights at any time during the interrogation. 

The detention of the vehicle from the time it approached primary inspection at the

checkpoint until the defendants were arrested was not unduly prolonged. At secondary

inspection, if not before, the agents developed a minimal showing of suspicion of criminal

activity, sufficient to justify the 20 minute delay. There is no dispute that the inspection was

to investigate alien smuggling.

RECOMMENDATION:

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that, after its independent review of the

record, the District Court DENY the motions to suppress (Docs. 22, 23, 43, 53). Statements

and evidence acquired as a result of the stop of the vehicle and interrogation of the

defendants should not be suppressed.

Defense counsel may serve and file written objections within 14 days. If objections

are not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation

to all parties.

DATED this 26th day of March, 2014.

Case 4:13-cr-00519-JGZ-LAB Document 68 Filed 03/27/14 Page 16 of 16