Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02048/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Steve Chavira
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED cnla 

United Stare3 C~~rt ~f App 'Tenth Ctrcutt 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 1 G 1993 

ROBERT L. H03CKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellant, 

v. 

MARTIN STEVE CHAVIRA, 

Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 93-2048 

ON APPEAL .FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 92-313-0l-JP) 

Francisco Macias, El Paso, Texas, for Appellee. 

Richard A. Friedman (Don J. Svet, United States Attorney, James 

D. Tierney, Assistant United states Attorney, with him on the 

brief) Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, Department 

of Justice, washington, DC, for Appellant. 

Before: MOORE, FEINBERG* and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge: 

The United States appeals from an order entered January 29, 

1993, in the United States District Court for the District of New 

Mexico, James A. Parker, J., suppressing evidence found during a 

Border Patrol stop of Martin steve Chavira. Judge Parker's 

opinion is reported at 811 F. Supp. 628. Because we find that 

Chavira consented to a dog-sniff of his vehicle that led to the 

* The Honorable Wilfred Feinberg, Senior United States Circuit 

Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 93-2048 Document: 01019284618 Date Filed: 11/16/1993 Page: 1 
search of his vehicle in the course of a permissible detention, 

we reverse the suppression order. 

on June 7, 1992, Chavira drove a car to a fixed Border 

Patrol checkpoint near Alamogordo, New Mexico. Border Patrol 

Agent Carlos Robles asked Chavira if he was a United States 

citizen, to which he responded affirmatively. Robles then went 

on to ask Chavira his destination and related questions. During 

this brief detention, Agent Robles requested and obtained 

permission to subject Chavira's car to a dog-sniff. The trained 

dog alerted to the presence of contraband. A subsequent search 

revealed 39 pounds of marijuana and 2.48 pounds of cocaine. 

Chavira was indicted for possession, with intent to 

distribute, of more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 

u.s.c. §§ 841(a) (1) and (b) (1) (B) and less than 50 kilograms of 

marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. §§ 84l(a) (1) and (b) (1) (D). 

The district court held that once Robles had asked Chavira 

whether he was a citizen and had received a satisfactory answer 

to his question, further questioning on what the district court 

regarded as matters "unrelated to immigration status" was 

impermissible absent "suspicious circumstances." 811 F. Supp. at 

630. The drugs were thus suppressed as the fruit of an illegal 

detention and search. 

Contrary to the district court's holding, however, Agent 

Robles needed no suspicious circumstances to justify asking 

Chavira his destination. After the district court ruled in this 

case, we made clear that the permissible scope of a routine 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-2048 Document: 01019284618 Date Filed: 11/16/1993 Page: 2 
border checkpoint stop extends beyond a mere inquiry into 

citizenship. Thus, the district court did not have the benefit 

of our observation that 

a few brief questions concerning such things as vehicle 

ownership, cargo, destination, and travel plans may be 

appropriate if reasonably related to the agent's duty 

to prevent the unauthorized entry of individuals into 

this country and to prevent the smuggling of 

contraband. 

United states v. Rascon-ortiz, 994 F.2d 749, 752 (lOth Cir. 1993) 

(emphasis added). Inquiry as to a motorist's destination and 

travel plans is reasonably related to the Border Patrol's duties 

in that it tests the motorist's demeanor and credibility and may 

indicate whether the motorist is going to a location where 

smuggling is a problem. 

Thus, Robles's inquiry into Chavira's destination was 

permissible even in the absence of suspicious circumstances. 

During this inquiry, Chavira stated that he was en route to 

Oklahoma to buy cars. Chavira was driving alone and did not 

appear to be carrying a tow bar. In light of his claim that he 

planned to buy cars, these facts reasonably aroused Robles's 

suspicions and prompted him to ask further questions. 

"Suspicious circumstances" justify a brief detention for further 

questioning. See United States v. Ludlow, 992 F.2d 260, 264 

(lOth Cir. 1993). Chavira claimed that his father was going to 

pick up the cars at a later time. He also claimed he was 

planning to shop for cars through the classified advertisements, 

although it was more common, in Agent Robles's experience, for 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-2048 Document: 01019284618 Date Filed: 11/16/1993 Page: 3 
car haulers to buy cars at auctions. We have examined the record 

and conclude that all of Robles's questions were justified. 

During this permissible detention, Agent Robles requested 

and obtained permission to have a trained dog sniff the 

vehicle. 1 When the dog indicated the presence of narcotics, 

Robles had probable cause to conduct a search, Morales-Zamora, 

914 F.2d at 205, which revealed the marijuana and cocaine. 

Therefore, the drugs found were not subject to suppression. 

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

Although consent is not required for a dog sniff of 

a lawfully detained vehicle even absent "individualized 

reasonable suspicion," United States v. Morales-Zamora, 

914 F.2d 200, 203 (lOth Cir. 1990), it is required for 

continued detention beyond the lawful period. In this 

case, Chavira consented to the dog-sniff, and in so doing 

consented to the resulting brief detention. 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-2048 Document: 01019284618 Date Filed: 11/16/1993 Page: 4