Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02184/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Horsley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of .Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

OCT 18 7990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

RONALD HORSLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2184 

(D.C. No. 89-81JB-01) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before MOORE, SETH, and TACHA, 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. 

This appeal is from defendant Horsley's conviction in the 

district court for possession of marijuana with intent to 

distribute in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 841(a)(l) and (b)(l)(D). 

Defendant appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress evidence from a search of his 

vehicle and in finding that consent was voluntarily given. We 

affirm. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2184 Document: 010110060408 Date Filed: 10/18/1990 Page: 1 
In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, the trial 

court's findings of fact must be accepted unless clearly 

erroneous. United States Y..!.. Cooper, 733 F.2d 1360, 1364 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1255 (1984). The evidence must be 

viewed in the light most favorable to the district court's 

findings. United States Y..!.. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371, 1376 (10th 

Cir. 1984). United States Border Patrol Agent Johnston stopped 

defendant shortly after he had exited Highway 52 near Truth or 

Consequences, New Mexico. The agent testified that he stopped 

defendant because he was traveling on Highway 52 in an old car 

which appeared to be riding low or heavy and because the agent 

thought he saw shadows in the back of the car after defendant had 

hesitated for an unusually long period of time at an intersection. 

Highway 52 in New Mexico is a known route for circumvention of the 

Border Patrol checkpoints on Interstate 25. 

The combination of factors cited by Agent Johnston represent 

sufficient, specific, and articulable facts that justify the 

initial stop. Therefore, we agree with the district court that 

these facts, in combination with the inferences to be drawn from 

them with regard to the likelihood of transportation of illegal 

aliens, were sufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle. See 

United States Y..!.. Leyba, 627 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

449 U.S. 987 (1980). Further, we cannot say that the district 

court was clearly erroneous in its finding that the consent to 

search the trunk of the vehicle was voluntarily given when 

defendant opened the trunk himself and allowed the officer to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2184 Document: 010110060408 Date Filed: 10/18/1990 Page: 2 
search. See United States Y..!.. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888, 892 (10th 

Cir. 1986). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2184 Document: 010110060408 Date Filed: 10/18/1990 Page: 3