Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cr-00778/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cr-00778-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adan Pineda-Doval
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.

ADAN PINEDA-DOVAL, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-06-00778-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion in Limine filed by the United States (Government) to

preclude Adan Pineda-Doval (Defendant) from offering evidence relating to whether the Border Patrol

agents complied with United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) policy when deploying

the tire spikes. After reviewing the parties’ memoranda and after listening to oral arguments, the Court

enters the following order. 

BACKGROUND

On August 7, 2006 Border Patrol agents from the El Centro Station were operating a checkpoint

on U.S. Highway 95 near the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona. An agent patrolling within the vicinity of

Yuma saw a white Chevrolet Suburban traveling northbound on Red Cloud Mine Road. Border Patrol

Agent Corey Lindsay followed the vehicle without activating his emergency lights. As the Suburban

traveled, Agent Lindsay noticed a large number of occupants, consistent with an alien smuggling load,

within the back of the vehicle. Agent Lindsay activated his emergency lights and siren while following

Case 2:06-cr-00778-SMM Document 101 Filed 10/15/07 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

1

The tire spike device are occasionally referred to as a Controlled Tire Deflation Device,

because the “spikes” are hollow metal tubes that let the air out of the tire in a controlled fashion without

causing it to explode.

- 2 -

the Suburban as it traveled eastbound on Martinez Lake Road and Ocotillo road. The driver of the

Suburban refused to yield.

As the Suburban neared Ocotillo Road, another agent placed tire spikes1, also known as spike

strips, on the road ahead of it. The Suburban, traveling at an approximate speed of 45-50 miles per

hour, swerved in an attempt to evade the tire spikes, causing the vehicle to roll. The Suburban rolled

at least two times, ejecting numerous passengers. Agents found 21 illegal aliens, including the

Defendant at the crash site. Five of the aliens at the scene were dead, and five more died at or en route

to hospitals. Several other passengers from the Suburban were seriously injured and evacuated by air

to hospitals in Phoenix and Yuma, Arizona. The Government filed this Motion in Limine to preclude

the Defendant from offering evidence relating to whether Border Patrol agents complied with CBP

policy when agents deployed tire spikes on August 7, 2006. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court is vested with discretion as to whether to hear a motion to exclude evidence

before a trial in an in limine proceeding. United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 554 (9th Cir. 1985).

In an in limine proceeding, the district court has the power to preclude the introduction of evidence in

support of a claimed defense, where the defense does not exist as a matter of law. See United States

v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 415 (1980). 

Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as having “any tendency to make the existence of any fact

that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would

be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

DISCUSSION

The Government filed this motion in limine in anticipation that the Defendant may attempt to

argue that the conduct of Border Patrol agents in deploying tire spikes caused the rollover collision in

this case. Specifically, the Government anticipates the Defendant may claim that the deployment of

the tire spikes violated CBP’s policy regarding its deployment. This Court finds that whether or not

Case 2:06-cr-00778-SMM Document 101 Filed 10/15/07 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 -

agents complied with CBP’s policy in the deployment of tire spikes is not relevant in this case. The

Court also finds that even if the evidence were relevant, Rule 403 would preclude its admittance

because of the likelihood of jury confusion and prejudice. Therefore the Defendant is precluded from

offering evidence or argument in an attempt to demonstrate that Border Patrol agents did not comply

with CBP’s policy on the deployment of tire spikes. 

The Defendant is charged with alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. section

1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Government must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt to prove

that Defendant is guilty under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Government has to prove that 1) the persons

named as aliens in the indictment were in fact aliens; 2) those persons were not lawfully in the

United States; 3) the Defendant knew or was in reckless disregard of the fact that those individuals

were not lawfully in the United States; and 4) the Defendant knowingly transported the aliens in

order to help them remain in the United States illegally. Manual of Model Jury Instructions for the

Ninth Circuit 9.2 (2007). Additionally, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to

the jury that the violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), resulted in the deaths of the individuals named in

the indictment to trigger the penalty enhancement set forth in § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv). See Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

The sentence enhancement set forth in § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv), incorporates a causation

requirement which provides notice that increased penalties may apply for defendants who allow

those they are smuggling to be exposed to life-threatening conditions during the course of

smuggling aliens based on the term “resulting”. United States v. Matus-Leva, 311 F.3d 1214, 1219

(9th Cir. 2002). According to Matus-Leva, the court explained that

the use of the word “resulting” means that there is an increased penalty only

if a death occurred in the course of smuggling and was related to the

smuggling. The term “resulting” incorporates a causation requiremnt and thus

puts persons of ordinary intelligence on notice that increased penalies may

apply if they allow those they are smuggling to be exposed to life-threatening

conditions during the smuggling process.

Matus-Leva, 311 F.3d at 1219. 

The causation requirement described in Matus-Leva is different than a standard of care

requirement. CBP’s policy on the use of tire spikes will likely only show whether or not the proper

Case 2:06-cr-00778-SMM Document 101 Filed 10/15/07 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 -

standard of care was used by the agent or agents who deployed the tire spikes. Because the

language of § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv) incorporates a causation requirement where the defendant’s

conduct does not need to be the immediate cause of the deaths, the issue of whether agents

complied with the CBP tire spike policy is not material to the issue of whether the penalty

enhancement applies to the defendant’s conduct. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has

noted that “[r]elevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a

relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case.” Huddleston v.

United States, 485 U.S. 681, 689 (1988) (citing Advisory Committee Notes on Fed. R. Evid. 401). 

Therefore the issue of whether the agents complied with the CBP tire spike policy is unrelated to

the issue of causation and is deemed not relevant. 

Even assuming that the CBP’s policy on tire spikes is relevant, Rule 403 would preclude the

policy from evidence because of its low probative value compared to the danger of unfair prejudice

that would likely result. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Relevant evidence may be excluded under Rule

403 only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by one or more of the articulated dangers

or considerations. See United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1172 (9th Cir. 2000).

The introduction of CBP’s policy on tire spikes as evidence would cause jury confusion and

would create a trial within a trial to determine whether the agents complied with the tire spike

policy. See generally Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000) (in a § 1983

action the court excluded evidence due in part because it required a “full-blown trial within this

trial”). This is especially true in light of the fact that individuals do not acquire any rights in

internal governmental policies. See United States v. Montoya, 45 F.3d 1286, 1295 (9th Cir. 1995)

(internal department guidelines do not create any rights inhering to criminal defendants); United

States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Busher, 817 F.2d 1409,

1411 (9th Cir. 1987). Cf. United States v. Haswood, 350 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (FBI

Agent’s failure to follow policy did not necessarily create a constitutional violation). Therefore,

even if CBP’s policy on tire spikes is relevant, the prejudicial effect will substantially outweigh its

probative value and is thus precluded under Rule 403. 

Case 2:06-cr-00778-SMM Document 101 Filed 10/15/07 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 -

This Court finds that CBP’s policy on tire spikes and any evidence purporting to demonstrate

a breach of that policy is not relevant and is therefore excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401

and 402. Even if the evidence is found relevant, it is precluded under Federal Rules of Evidence

403.

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 85) is hereby

GRANTED.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cr-00778-SMM Document 101 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 5