Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cr-01916/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cr-01916-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Gonzalez-Saucedo
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

David Gonzalez-Saucedo, 

 Defendant. 

CR 12-01916-TUC-DCB (JR) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pretrial matters. 

A Motion to Suppress (Doc. 37) filed by Defendant David Gonzalez-Saucedo was 

heard by Magistrate Judge Rateau on June 12, 2013. Defendant Gonzalez-Saucedo 

was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel. The Government 

presented five witnesses: United States Border Patrol Agents Adam Knight, Sean 

King, Patrick Ford, and Alberto Ontiveros; and Department of Public Safety Officer 

Rob Palmer. Defendant Gonzalez-Saucedo testified on his own behalf. The 

witnesses were examined, cross-examined, and questioned by the Court. Having 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 19
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

considered the matter, the Magistrate Judge submits the following Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law and recommends that Defendant Gonzalez-Saucedo's 

Motion be denied. 

I. Findings of Fact 

 Defendant Gonzalez-Saucedo has suffered from asthma, which he usually 

controls with an inhaler, since he was a child. (Tr. 126-127.) On the morning of 

August 14, 2012, Gonzalez-Saucedo, then a resident of Tucson, was in Sierra Vista 

when he had an asthma attack and, because he did not have his inhaler, went to the 

emergency room at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center. (Tr. 127, 142.) After 

being at the hospital for an hour and a half and receiving a breathing treatment, he 

was released with an inhaler and given prednisone. (Tr. 128, Ex. 105 (medical 

records).) 

 An hour or two after leaving the hospital, Gonzalez-Saucedo met a person at a 

gas station near the hospital who asked him to drive a Camaro to a Dollar Store in 

Tucson. (Tr. 143-144.) Gonzalez-Saucedo agreed to take the Camaro and began 

traveling toward Tucson. (Tr. 128.) 

 That same day, Border Patrol Agent Adam Knight was assigned to the 

immigration checkpoint located on State Route 83 between Sonoita, Arizona and 

Interstate 10. (Tr. 7.) However, due to scattered thunderstorms and standing water 

on the road, the checkpoint was down and Agent Knight, who was in uniform and 

driving an unmarked Ford 250 Super Duty K-9 truck, stationed himself about 20 feet 

from the roadway at the northeast corner of the intersection of State Route 82, which 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 2 of 19
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

is an east/west traveling road, and State Route 83, which runs north/south, in the 

town of Sonoita and began observing traffic. (Tr. 7-8, 10.) At the intersection, there 

is only a stop sign for north/south traffic. (Tr. 8.) State Routes 82 and 83 are well 

known to border patrol agents as trafficking routes. (Tr. 33.) 

 At approximately 6:15 in the evening, Agent Knight saw a red or burgundy 

Camaro, followed by a Dodge Ram pickup truck. (Tr. 8-9, 45.) He initially noticed 

the vehicles because he had seen only one vehicle every 10 or 15 minutes while he 

was stationed at the intersection and these vehicles were traveling in close 

succession. (Tr. 9.) As the Camaro approached, Agent Knight noticed that the driver 

was sitting awkwardly upright as if something was obstructing the seat causing it to 

be pushed forward. (Tr. 10, 66.) The driver was sitting very close to the steering 

wheel and had both of his hands at a 12 o’clock position on the wheel as he began to 

make a right turn onto northbound State Route 83. (Tr. 10.) As the Camaro made 

the turn, Agent Knight noticed the driver, after initially making eye contact, 

repeatedly looked back and forth between the agent and the road. (Tr. 10.) 

 Agent Knight’s attention was then drawn to the Dodge Ram pickup following 

ten to twelve feet behind the Camaro. (Tr. 12.) In that vehicle, there was a male 

driver wearing a baseball cap and a female passenger, who looked directly at Agent 

Knight as they passed. (Tr. 12-13.) When she saw him, “her expression was sort of 

like feign shock, and then what she did is she turned to the driver and then dove into 

his seat, dove across his lap as he was driving.” (Tr. 13.) Agent Knight believed she 

was “performing” and trying to get his attention. (Tr. 13.) 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 3 of 19
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 Based on what he saw, Agent Knight decided to follow the vehicles. He 

pulled out and began traveling north on State Route 83 until he caught up with the 

vehicles, which were traveling between 30 and 45 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone, and 

pulled in behind the Ram pickup. (Tr. 13, 15-16.) Shortly after he began following 

the vehicles, he noticed the driver was watching him closely in his mirrors and also 

saw the passenger “jump out of the lap of the driver” and began fixing her hair. (Tr. 

17.) After noting the license plate number of the Dodge Ram, Agent Knight 

attempted to pull around the pickup to and get in between it and the Camaro. (Tr. 13-

14.) However, the Ram pickup was still following the Camaro at a very close 

distance and was swerving from the shoulder to median in an exaggerated manner 

that the agent likened to the behavior of a drunk driver. (Tr. 14-15.) In fact, when 

the agent would pull out to pass the Ram, the driver would quickly move the pickup 

into the oncoming lane and Agent Knight was forced to pull back and remain behind 

the pickup or it would remain so close to the Camaro that Agent Knight was unable 

to pull in between the two vehicles. (Tr. 15.) 

 After this happened several times over a period of six to ten minutes and a 

distance of eight or nine miles, Agent Knight decided to pass both vehicles. (Tr. 20.) 

Traveling at the posted speed limit of 55 m.p.h., Agent Knight quickly gained 

distance ahead of the Camaro and the Ram, and he then pulled over to the side of the 

road and again began observing traffic. (Tr. 21-22.) Agent Knight eventually saw 

the vehicles approaching, still traveling close together at approximately 35 to 40 

m.p.h., and again noticed the behavior of the driver of the Camaro. This time, 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 4 of 19
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

instead of looking at Agent Knight, the driver did not look over, but continued to 

look forward. (Tr. 22.) However, the driver was still sitting in an upright position 

and his hands were still in the awkward 12 o’clock position that Agent Knight 

noticed when he first spotted the Camaro making the turn onto State Route 83. (Tr. 

22-23.) 

 As Agent Knight began to pull out to resume following the vehicles, he 

noticed a third vehicle, a blue Chevrolet pickup, approaching from the south and 

traveling at or just above the speed limit. (Tr. 23-24.) After the Chevrolet pickup 

passed, he pulled back out onto SR 83 and all three of the vehicles he was following 

began traveling at the 55 m.p.h. speed limit. (Tr. 24.) Agent Knight ran the license 

plate of the Chevrolet and determined it was registered out of Bisbee, Arizona. (Tr. 

25.) After a few miles, the vehicles all slowed to approximately 35 m.p.h. (Tr. 25-

26.) Then, after traveling through several passing zones, the Chevrolet eventually 

passed both the Camaro and the Ram truck and Agent Knight pulled in again behind 

the Dodge. (Tr. 26.) He then encountered a Cadillac Escalade parked on the side of 

the road with its lights on observing traffic. (Tr. 26-27.) Agent Knight noticed the 

Escalade because he had seen it at the SR 82/83 intersection approximately 20 

minutes prior to the arrival of the Camaro and the Ram. (Tr. 27.) The Escalade 

pulled in behind Agent Knight and continued traveling behind him as he followed the 

other two vehicles northbound on SR 83. (Id.) Agent Knight ran a registration check 

on the Escalade and was told it was registered out of Huachuca City, Arizona. (Tr. 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 5 of 19
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

28-29.) At the next available passing zone, the Escalade passed all three of the 

vehicles, Agent Knight’s truck, the Ram and the Camaro. (Tr. 28.) 

 Now again traveling behind the Ram and Camaro, Agent Knight tried to pass 

the Ram once more, but was prevented from doing so when the Ram moved into the 

oncoming lane. (Tr. 29.) Still behind the Ram, Agent Knight activated his 

emergency lights, which were in the front grill of his vehicle. (Tr. 29-30) The Ram 

yielded and, as it pulled off onto the road shoulder, Agent Knight passed and pulled 

in behind the Camaro. (Tr. 29-30.) He then was able to see the Camaro’s license 

plate and ran the registration and was told that the vehicle was recently purchased 

and was registered out of Huachuca City, Arizona. (Tr. 30.) 

 The Camaro then pulled over and stopped partially off the roadway, but 

blocking a portion of the northbound lane of SR 83. (Tr. 30-31.) The Ram, which 

was now behind Agent Knight, then accelerated quickly and sped northbound on SR 

83. (Tr. 31.) Agent Knight then approached the passenger side of the Camaro so he 

would not be in the road and in the backseat and floorboard, he noticed a black 

sleeping bag that was covering large rectangular objects which he believed were 

marijuana. (Tr. 31, 35) Agent Knight asked the driver for identification and he did 

not have a driver’s license, but provided an Arizona identification card indicating he 

was David Saucedo-Gonzalez. (Tr. 33.) 

 Gonzalez-Saucedo testified that when he was pulled over he was feeling 

nauseated and was suffering from a cough and shortness of breath. However, 

according to Agent Knight, Gonzalez-Saucedo did not appear to be in any physical 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 6 of 19
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

distress when he engaged him in conversation. (Tr. 132, 33.) Gonzalez-Saucedo 

testified that he requested medical attention and was ignored. Agent Knight, who has 

first responder training, did not recall such a request and did not notice any distress. 

(Tr. 132-133, 147, 34, 40.) Agent Knight did notice that Gonzalez-Saucedo’s hands 

were noticeably shaking when he was manipulating his wallet to remove his 

identification. (Tr. 33-34.) When questioned, Gonzalez-Saucedo said he was 

coming from Sierra Vista and that the Camaro belonged to a friend by the name of 

Joe Dominguez. Agent Knight determined that the vehicle had never been registered 

to a person by that name. (Tr. 34-35.) 

 Agent Knight requested to see the identifying documents related to the 

vehicle, but Gonzalez-Saucedo was unable to produce them and was searching the 

vehicle for any paperwork associated with the vehicle. (Tr. 35.) Because he could 

not see what Gonzalez-Saucedo was reaching for, Agent Knight asked him to exit the 

vehicle. (Tr. 35-36.) After determining he was a legally admitted permanent 

resident, Agent Knight escorted him to the rear of the vehicle, performed a Terry

frisk, and obtained Gonzalez-Saucedo’s consent to search the vehicle. (Tr. 36.) 

Agent Knight then went to his service vehicle and returned with his K-9 to perform 

an exterior sniff of the Camaro. (Id.) The K-9 alerted by following the scent from an 

open window, then jumping into the vehicle without command and sitting. (Tr. 37.) 

 Agent Knight asked Gonzalez-Saucedo about the contents of the Camaro and 

he denied he was responsible, saying it was not even his car. (Tr. 37.) Agent Knight 

then returned the dog to his service vehicle, returned to the Camaro and leaned in to 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 7 of 19
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

visually inspect the car. (Id.) He saw brown packaging tape and smelled what he 

believed to be marijuana. (Tr. 38.) He then took Gonzalez-Saucedo into custody by 

handcuffing him and sitting him down next to his service vehicle. (Id.) While Agent 

Knight questioned about biographical information, Gonzalez-Saucedo became 

emotional and said, “This will ruin my life. I have children. I’m unable to take care 

of, pay for my [asthma] medication.” (Tr. 38-39.) 

 Shortly after Agent Knight placed Gonzalez-Saucedo in custody, Supervisory 

Border Patrol Agent Sean King arrived on the scene and read him his Miranda

warnings. (Tr. 40-41, 91.) After placing Gonzalez-Saucedo in the back of a Border 

Patrol SUV, Agents King and Knight questioned him and he claimed that he had 

obtained the vehicle through a friend, John Spatco. He admitted picking it up at the 

Veterans Memorial Park in Sierra Vista and that he had seen the Cadillac Escalade at 

the park. (Tr. 41, 42, 93.) He also admitted that he knew that there was marijuana in 

the vehicle when he picked it up and that he was going to be paid to deliver it to 

Tucson. (Tr. 42.) 

 After 20 or 30 minutes of questioning, although he still appeared to Agent 

Knight to be in no distress, Gonzalez-Saucedo expressed concerns about his asthma, 

saying he was experiencing a shortness of breath. (Tr. 42-43, 44, 92-93.) The agents 

discontinued questioning and Agent King called for an EMT certified agent to 

respond to the scene. (Tr. 43.) Officer Rob Palmer, who was EMT trained, from the 

Department of Public Safety arrived on the scene. (Tr. 98.) He described GonzalezSaucedo as handcuffed, calm and cooperative at the time (Tr. 100.) He did not 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 8 of 19
9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

observe any shortness of breath and noted that “everything seemed fine” when he 

arrived. (Id.) Gonzalez-Saucedo did not immediately request medical care, but when 

it started raining heavily, he was moved into the backseat of Officer Palmer’s SUV 

and, five or ten minutes later, began complaining of chest pains. (Tr. 101-102.) 

 Officer Palmer immediately assessed his vital signs and placed him on 

oxygen. The officer observed that Gonzalez-Saucedo was “starting to have a little bit 

of shortness of breath” and was becoming flushed. (Tr. 102.) He did not have an 

oxygen monitor and therefore was unable to determine the oxygen levels in 

Gonzalez-Saucedo’s body, so he requested additional assistance from Border Patrol 

Agent Patrick Ford, who was also in the area. (Tr. 102-103.) Gonzalez-Saucedo 

remained in Officer Palmer’s vehicle with the air conditioning on and was not being 

questioned. (Tr. 103, 111.) Agent Ford arrived and also assessed Gonzalez-Saucedo, 

finding his vitals within normal limits except for his breathing, which was rapid and 

shallow with some wheezing. (Tr. 103, 109-110.) Due to Gonzalez-Saucedo’s 

complaints of chest pain, the decision was made to call an ambulance, which arrived 

in approximately 15 minutes. (Tr. 103-104, 112.) Gonzalez-Saucedo was then taken 

from the scene and transported to Kino Hospital in Tucson. (Tr. 134, 78-79, 104, 

111.) 

 Early the following morning, Gonzalez-Saucedo was returned to custody at 

the Sonoita Border Patrol Station and, beginning at just after 3:00 a.m. and ending 

before 3:15 a.m., was questioned and videotaped by Agent Alberto Ontiveros. (Tr. 

114, 117, 135, 149; Ex. 3 (video recording).) Agent Ontiveros recalls that GonzalezCase 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 9 of 19
10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Saucedo was still experiencing some asthma symptoms and he offered him water and 

coffee, but during the interviews, Gonzalez-Saucedo did not appear to be in physical 

distress and he did not request medical attention. (Tr. 115-116, 121.) After reading 

him his Miranda warnings on the video recording, Gonzalez-Saucedo agreed to talk 

with Agent Ontiveros without a lawyer present. (Tr. 119.) After the video interview 

concluded, Gonzalez-Saucedo was further questioned for intelligence-gathering 

purposes. (Tr. 120.) Gonzalez-Saucedo claims that he collapsed as he was being 

returned to his cell, however, medical records reflect that later that morning 

Gonzalez-Saucedo was transported by ambulance to Sierra Vista Regional Medical 

Center, leaving the Sonoita station shortly after 9:00 a.m. and admitted to the 

hospital at 9:51 a.m. (Tr. 136; Ex. 107 (medical records).) 

II. Conclusions of Law 

 A. The stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. 

 Gonzalez-Saucedo moves to suppress the evidence seized following the stop 

of the vehicle in which he was traveling. The Fourth Amendment protects the right 

of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against 

unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 226 (1985). In 

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 (1968), the Supreme Court held that, consistent with 

the Fourth Amendment, police may stop persons in the absence of probable cause 

under limited circumstances. The Court has held that law enforcement agents may 

briefly stop a moving automobile to investigate a reasonable suspicion that its 

occupants are involved in criminal activity. Hensley, 469 U.S. at 226. 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 10 of 19
11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific articulable 

facts, that, together with rational inferences drawn from them, reasonably warrant a 

suspicion that the person to be detained has committed or is about to commit a crime. 

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 416-18 (1981). The articulable facts forming 

the basis of a reasonable suspicion must be measured against an objective 

reasonableness standard, not by the subjective impressions of a particular officer. 

Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir.1994). When assessing the 

reasonableness of the police officer's actions, the court must consider the totality of 

the circumstances which confronted the officer at the time of the stop. United States 

v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989). In relation to stops by the border patrol, the totality 

of circumstances may include: 

(1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual 

patterns of traffic and time of day; (4) previous alien or drug smuggling 

in the area; (5) behavior of the driver, including obvious attempt to 

evade officers; (6) appearance or behavior of passengers; (7) model and 

appearance of the vehicle; and, (8) officer experience. 

United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United 

States v. Garcia-Barron, 116 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1997)). In this case, the Court 

must ascertain whether the factors cited by the Government in support of the stop 

constitute behavior that should excite the suspicion of a trained border patrol agent 

that criminal activity is afoot. See United States v. Rodriquez, 976 F.2d 592, 595 (9th 

Cir. 1992) amended by United States v. Rodriquez, 997 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In the Response to the motion to suppress and at the hearing, the Government 

cited Agent Knight’s experience and awareness that smuggling operations are 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 11 of 19
12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

common in the Sonoita area, particularly when the border checkpoint is not 

operational. In addition to these general factors, the Government argues that the stop 

was also supported by Gonzalez-Saucedo’s driving posture and hand position on the 

steering wheel, that the Camaro appeared to be traveling in tandem with the Dodge 

Ram, and the suspicious actions of the driver and passenger in the Ram. These 

factors are considered individually and collectively. 

 1. Proximity to the Border 

 Agent Knight testified that he is familiar with the area around Sonoita and that 

his suspicions are supported by the town’s proximity to the border and the history of 

alien and drug smuggling in the area. He also noted that the border checkpoint in the 

area was closed at the time due to inclement weather. The cases indicate that these 

factors are entitled to a varying degree of weight. The Ninth Circuit has stated that 

“[a] location or route frequented by illegal immigrants, but also by many legal 

residents, is not significantly probative to an assessment of reasonable suspicion.” 

United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2006). For example, if 

the road regularly carries alien and drug smugglers, but also carries a large volume of 

legitimate traffic, this factor carries little weight. See United States v. BrignoniPonce, 422 U.S. 873, 882 (1975). However, if the road is a remote, unpaved road 

that is rarely traveled except when used by smugglers to avoid detection and arrest, 

this factor would be entitled to greater consideration in the reasonable suspicion 

calculation. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 269 (2002). 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 12 of 19
13 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 Here, Agent Knight’s suspicions were initially raised because the driver of the 

Camaro was driving awkwardly and was being closely followed by the Ram, whose 

occupants engaged in behavior that he believed was intended to distract his attention 

from the Camaro. Of course there is nothing inherently suspicious about vehicles 

traveling on a public highway. See United States v. Rodriquez, 976 F.2d 592, 595 

(9th Cir. 1992). It is also notable that the road is paved and Agent Knight described 

it as being used to commute between Sonoita and the Tucson area. That would 

suggest that the road was in regular use. As such, this factor does deserve some 

weight given Sonoita’s proximity to the border and the amount and frequency of 

alien and drug smuggling activity in the area. 

 2. Behavior of the Driver

 Agent Knight described several credible factors that raised his suspicions 

about Gonzalez-Saucedo. When he initially saw Gonzalez-Saucedo, he noticed that 

he was sitting awkwardly upright and very close to the steering wheel, suggesting 

that something was preventing him from moving the seat back. He also noticed that 

Gonzalez-Saucedo repeatedly looked back and forth from the road to the agent. The 

latter factor became more significant later when Agent Knight passed the Camaro 

and the Ram and allowed them to pass him again as he sat by the road. At the time 

of the second contact, Gonzalez-Saucedo did not look at the agent, but kept looking 

forward at the road. Although the Court typically does not put great weight on the 

consideration of whether a driver does or does not make eye contact with an agent, in 

this case there was both what could be described as nervous eye contact initially 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 13 of 19
14 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

coupled with a refusal to make eye contact later. When considered with the driver’s 

upright and awkward driving position, these factors do carry some weight in the 

reasonable suspicion calculus in this case. 

 3. Tandem Driving 

 Traveling in tandem, although not sufficient on its own to establish founded 

suspicion, is a factor that can be considered. United States v. Larios-Montes, 500 

F.2d 941, 943-44 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 

1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that tandem driving could be given some weight in 

evaluation of reasonable suspicion). However, the determination that vehicles are 

driving in tandem must be based on more than the “briefest of observations.” United 

States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1989). Where it is relied upon to 

support reasonable suspicion, the evidence of tandem driving must be detailed and 

substantial. See United States v. Medina-Gasca, 739 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(extended observation of three vehicles traveling close together, parking together and 

then traveling again in tandem). 

 In this case, when Agent Knight first spotted the Camaro and Ram truck, he 

was in a stationary position alongside the road. He immediately noticed that the 

vehicles were traveling closely together. Then, the female passenger in the Ram 

“feigned” concern and dove into the lap of the driver. This suggested to Agent 

Knight that the occupants in the Ram were attempting to draw his attention to 

themselves and away from the Camaro. Agent Knight’s initial suspicion was further 

supported by the maneuvering of the Ram when Agent Knight attempted to pass it 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 14 of 19
15 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

and pull in behind the Camaro. The Ram was variously pulling into oncoming traffic 

to prevent Agent Knight’s attempt to overtake, or would pull so close to the Camaro 

that Agent Knight was unable to pull in behind the Camaro. Finally, both vehicles 

were traveling below the posted speed limit, but the Ram never attempted to pass the 

Camaro. Thus, in this case, the evidence of tandem driving is significant and this 

factor deserves great weight in the evaluation of reasonable suspicion. 

 4. Totality of the Circumstances

 In deciding whether the totality of the circumstances establish reasonable 

suspicion, it is inappropriate to consider each factor in isolation or to give no weight 

to factors for which an innocent explanation may exist. United States v. Arvizu, 534 

U.S. 266, 274 (2002). Considering in totality the factors identified by Agent Knight, 

the Court concludes they are sufficient to establish the reasonable, particularized 

suspicion necessary to support the investigative stop of the Camaro driven by 

Gonzalez-Saucedo. 

B. Gonzalez-Saucedo’s statements were voluntary. 

Gonzalez-Saucedo contends that his statements to the agents must be 

suppressed because the stop of his vehicle was illegal and because his medical 

condition was used to force him to provide a statement in exchange for favorable 

treatment. As discussed above, the Court finds that the stop was supported by 

reasonable suspicion and therefore does not provide a basis for suppression of 

Gonzalez-Saucedo’s statement. Moreover, the Court also concludes that the 

statements were voluntary. 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 15 of 19
16 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 As a threshold matter, the obligation to provide Miranda warnings attaches 

once a person is subject to “custodial interrogation.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 

436, 445 (1966). Custody turns on whether there is a formal arrest or a restraint on 

freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest. United States v. 

Rodriguez-Preciado, 399 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2005), amended by United States 

v. Rodriguez-Preciado, 416 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2005). There is no dispute that 

Gonzalez-Saucedo was in custody during his roadside interrogation and the later 

interrogation at the station. It is also undisputed that he was provided and waived his 

Miranda rights on both occasions. 

 Despite receiving his Miranda warnings, Gonzalez-Saucedo nevertheless 

claims his statements were involuntary. A confession is involuntary if it is not “the 

product of a rational intellect and a free will.” Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 979 

(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307 (1963). “The test is 

whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the government obtained the 

statement by physical or psychological coercion or by improper inducement so that 

the suspect’s will was overborne.” Beaty v. Schriro, 509 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 

2007). A statement may also be considered involuntary if it is extracted by any sort 

of threat or violence, or “obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, 

[or] by the exertion of any improper influence.” Id. 

 Gonzalez-Saucedo claims that Agents Knight and King were aware that he 

was having medical issues, but nevertheless continued questioning him even while he 

was getting treatment. However, Officer Palmer and Agent Ford contradicted this 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 16 of 19
17 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

contention. They were charged with treating Gonzalez-Saucedo at the scene and 

both testified that he was not being questioned at that time. In fact, they did not even 

find Gonzalez-Saucedo was in acute distress, only sending him to the hospital via 

ambulance because they were concerned not with his breathing and oxygen 

saturation, but with his complaints of chest pain. Additionally, the fact that Agent 

Knight called the EMTs to the scene undermines Gonzalez-Saucedo’s contention that 

the agent was using his condition to leverage a statement from him. 

 Gonzalez-Saucedo also contends that his statement at the Sonoita station given 

to Agent Ontiveros was involuntary because he was struggling with asthma and was 

told that he had until the ambulance arrived to cooperate or they could no longer help 

him. (Tr. 133.) A review of the video recording of the statement undermines 

Gonzalez-Saucedo’s contention that he was visibly suffering. (Ex. 3.) While the 

recording does illustrate that he was coughing, it discloses no obvious signs that he 

was in the type of distress that needed immediate medical attention. He was quiet 

and cooperative and said nothing to the agents about his asthma. Additionally, 

Gonzalez-Saucedo’s claims that he had until the ambulance arrived to copperate is 

not supported by the documented timing of the evening. The recorded portion of the 

interview was over by 3:14 a.m. on August 15, 2012 (Ex. 3), and he was not sent to 

the hospital until around 9:00 a.m. (Ex. 107.) Thus, the unrecorded portion of the 

interview would have had to have taken approximately five hours if GonzalezSaucedo’s version of events is to be believed. Given that the recorded portion of the 

interview was under 15 minutes, and the unrecorded portion was reported as being 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 17 of 19
18 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

approximately twice that long, the entire interview would have ended no later than 

about 4:00 a.m., or approximately five hours before Gonzalez-Saucedo was taken to 

the hospital. There is nothing in the record that would support Gonzalez-Saucedo’s 

contention that he went from the interview directly to the hospital. Thus, considering 

the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interview, the Court finds that the 

second statement, like the first, was entirely voluntary. 

III. Recommendation for Disposition by the District Judge 

 Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 

Civil 72.1, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, 

the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review 

of the record, DENY the Motion to Suppress (Doc. 37) filed by Defendant David 

Gonzalez-Saucedo. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 

Court's judgment. However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date 

of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written 

objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) 

and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) 

days within which to file a response to the objections. No replies are permitted 

without leave of court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated 

case number: CR 12-1916-TUC-DCB. Failure to timely file objections to any 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 18 of 19
19 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of 

a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

 Dated this 4th day of July, 2013. 

Case 4:12-cr-01916-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 07/05/13 Page 19 of 19