Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02231/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02231-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcelino Millan-Diaz
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH i· 1 7 ~ --- u . L .L · nl(.ed Sr:u,_,~ Cr:,m·i .,.,: • 'r,, .. ,.,. _ . •.'.U1") 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 15 7992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

MARCELINO MILLAN-DIAZ, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

Clerk . 

91-2231 

On Appeal From The 

United States District Court 

For The District Of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CR-91-370 SC ) 

Kristina L. Ament Attorney, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. (Don J. Svet, United States Attorney, and 

Presiliano A. Torrez, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, with her on the briefs), for 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Rosanne Camunez, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for DefendantAppellee. 

Before BALDOCK, SETH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

SETH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 1
Defendant, Marcelino Millan-Diaz, was indicted for 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(D). The 

district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress 

marijuana found in his car as well as his statements to 

Border Patrol agents. The United States appeals. We affirm. 

On July 9, 1991, at approximately 1:45 a.m., Defendant 

was stopped by United States Border Patrol Agents Clinton and 

Olson who were on a roving patrol. Agent Clinton testified 

that he stopped Defendant's vehicle for the purpose of 

determining whether Defendant was transporting illegal 

aliens. At the time he was stopped, Defendant was driving a 

1978 Ford Granada and was traveling north on New Mexico 

Highway 185 (also known as Highway 85). There was no traffic 

violation. 

Highway 185 begins south of Las Cruces and parallels 

Interstate 25 for over 50 miles until it joins the interstate 

near Arrey, New Mexico. Agent Clinton testified that traffic 

on Highway 185 is light in the hours between midnight and 

5:00 a.m. and that he was familiar with the only three 

vehicles that regularly traveled that stretch of road at 

those hours. He also testified that when the Highway 185 

checkpoint is closed, as it was on the evening of July 9, 

vehicles smuggling illegal aliens frequently use that route 

in order to avoid the checkpoint on Interstate 25. 

In response to their questions, Defendant produced 

proper identification and told the agents that he was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 2
traveling from El Paso, Texas to Albuquerque, New Mexico. He 

stated that he had stopped in Las Cruces to purchase gas but 

that he could not remember where . 

Agent Clinton asked Defendant what was in the trunk and 

Defendant replied that it was empty. Clinton then asked 

Defendant for permission to search the trunk and Defendant 

consented. After confirming that no illegal aliens were 

present in the trunk of the car, Agent Clinton began banging 

inside the trunk and shook the spare tire . 

The testimony differs on whether Defendant consented to 

a search of the remainder of the car. Agent Clinton 

testified that he asked Defendant's permission to search the 

car and that he consented. Defendant claims that he was 

never asked for permission to search the rest of the car. 

While Agent Olson stood with Defendant at the agents' 

car, Agent Clinton continued to inspect the car. As he was 

tapping on the passenger side rocker panel he heard a dull 

thud instead of the hollow ring that he heard when he tapped 

on the driver's side rocker panel. He also noticed a damaged 

area in the rear wheel well in line with the rocker panel. 

At this point Agent Clinton suspected that something had been 

placed in the hollow area in the running board of the car. 

He detained Defendant further and asked him to accompany the 

agents to the Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 25 so 

that the agents could investigate the car further. 

When Defendant was asked to accompany the agents to the 

checkpoint for a further inspection of his car, Agent Clinton 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 3
was in possession of the keys to Defendant's car. The agent 

testified that at that point "he [the Defendant] would be 

considered under arrest, since his freedom of movement was 

under our control." However, he was not then formally 

arrested. Defendant consented to go to the checkpoint, and 

Agent Clinton drove Defendant's car while Defendant rode with 

Agent Olson in the Border Patrol car. This was a distance of 

18 to 20 miles. Defendant was put in the checkpoint 

building. At the checkpoint, Agent Clinton removed the 

rocker panel step plate and found a compartment containing 

approximately 17 pounds of marijuana. 

After Defendant was formally placed under arrest and was 

read his Miranda rights, he agreed to answer questions . 

Defendant admitted that his car contained 10 to 15 pounds of 

marijuana which belonged to him but he refused to answer 

questions regarding his supplier. 

An indictment was returned against Defendant charging 

him with possession with intent to distribute less than 50 

kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 841(a)(l) 

and 21 u.s.c. § 84l(b)(l)(D). Before trial, Defendant moved 

to suppress the marijuana found in his car and his statements 

made to Border Patrol agents while in custody. 

The district court granted the motion to suppress. The 

court found that the agents had reasonable suspicion that 

Defendant was transporting illegal aliens but that the 

suspicion was dispelled once the agents looked in the vehicle 

and it became obvious that Defendant was the only person 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 4
traveling in it. The court held that the search from that 

point forward was unlawful because Defendant was effectively 

under arrest without probable cause. The court suppressed 

the evidence taken from Defendant's vehicle and his 

statements to Border Patrol officers as fruit of the 

poisonous tree. 

The initial stop and detention of Defendant is not an 

issue in this case. The district court properly found that 

the agents had reasonable suspicion of smuggling of illegal 

aliens to justify the stop. 

The issue here is whether the agents' continued 

detention of Defendant after it was obvious that there were 

no other passengers in the car was an unreasonable seizure 

under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that 

an investigative detention, such as the one at issue here, 

must "last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the 

purpose of the stop." Florida v. Royer, 460 U."S. 491, 500. 

"The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its 

underlying justification." Id. In this case, the agents' 

further detention of Defendant was not justified by the 

circumstances and exceeded the limits of a Terry 

investigative stop. See also United States v. Sharpe, 470 

U.S. 675; United States v. Walker, 933 F.2d 812 (10th Cir.); 

and United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.). 

The purpose of the stop, to investigate suspicion of 

illegal alien smuggling, was satisfied as soon as the agents 

approached Defendant's vehicle and determined that Defendant 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 5
was the only passenger. Any doubt about the presence of 

illegal aliens was surely dispelled once Agent Clinton peered 

into the trunk of the car. Thus, the reasonable suspicion 

necessary to continue the encounter with Defendant had 

disappeared. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. 

At this point, the agents should have terminated the 

encounter and allowed Defendant to go on his way. Agent 

Clinton's actions in searching the remainder of the car were 

not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and 

thus exceeded the permissible scope of the investigatory 

detention. Therefore, we hold that the search of Defendant's 

vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the 

district court properly suppressed the evidence that was the 

product of the illegal search. 

Also, Defendant was illegally detained because the 

agent's reasonable suspicion had disappeared. "[S]tatements 

given during a period of illegal detention are inadmissible 

even though voluntarily given if they are the product of the 

illegal detention .... " Florida v. Royer, 491 U.S. at 

501. Defendant's statements to the agents after his arrest 

and transportation to the Interstate 25 checkpoint were 

voluntarily given but were clearly the product of the illegal 

detention. Thus, the district court correctly suppressed 

Defendant's statements. 

The Government argues that Defendant's further detention 

was reasonable and justified by Defendant's nervous behavior. 

This position is not persuasive. In all search and seizure 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 6
cases of the type here concerned, the Government argues that 

a defendant's nervousness, either alone or in conjunction 

with other factors, supports the contested search or seizure. 

This repetitive assertion by the Government in all cases of 

this kind must be treated with caution. It is common 

knowledge that most citizens, and especially aliens, whether 

innocent or guilty, when confronted by a law enforcement 

officer who asks them potentially incriminating questions are 

likely to exhibit some signs of nervousness. The recital of 

Defendant's alleged nervousness, which was denied, cannot be 

sufficient to create a meaningful suspicion of drug smuggling 

in these circumstances. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 91-2231 Document: 010110322284 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 7