Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03245/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luciano Nunez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT 31 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LUCIANO NUNEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-3245 

(D.C. No. 89-10009-02) 

( D. Kan. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Nunez appeals from the denial of his motion to 

suppress evidence obtained when police used a dog to sniff his 

luggage after it was taken from an airplane and before it was 

delivered to him. The district court found that after Nunez was 

*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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3245 Document: 010110064940 Date Filed: 10/31/1990 Page: 1 
informed the dog had alerted on one of two bags he and a companion 

had checked, he consented to a search of the luggage. 

On appeal, Nunez contends that the police lacked reasonable 

suspicion to search the luggage and that the dog sniff was 

therefore unconstitutional. Our recent decision in United States 

v. Morales-Zamora, F.2d __ , No. 89-2172 (10th Cir. filed 

Sept. 6, 1990), is directly on point. We held there that police 

officers did not need an individualized suspicion of drug-related 

criminal activity before subjecting a vehicle to a dog sniff where 

the vehicle had been lawfully stopped at a license-check road 

block, the vehicle was not delayed beyond the normal time, and the 

defendant was not inconvenienced or embarrassed by the sniff. We 

find that case indistinguishable from the present one in all 

pertinent respects. 

Nunez also questions the district court's conclusion that he 

voluntarily consented to the search. Nunez testified at the 

suppression hearing that he was the owner of the blue suitcase, 

rec., vol. II, at 87, but denied he gave permission to search it. 

However, the agents testified that Nunez not only consented to the 

search but actually produced the key to the blue suitcase that 

contained the drugs. The district court is the judge of the 

witnesses' credibility, and we cannot say on this record that its 

finding of voluntary consent is clearly erroneous. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3245 Document: 010110064940 Date Filed: 10/31/1990 Page: 2 
Nor are we persuaded that the evidence was insufficient to 

support Nunez's conviction. Nunez's ownership of the blue 

suitcase and his possession of the key undermines his argument 

that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3245 Document: 010110064940 Date Filed: 10/31/1990 Page: 3