Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02002/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Paul Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

I' 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FI I.ED 

~J..1it.cd States 0)urt of Appeals r ...- ···~~·; r-•-,--:~ 

FEB l 1990 

ROBERT L. 1-fOECI(ER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2002 

BRIAN PAUL JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CR-88-320-JP) 

Presiliano A. Torrez, Assistant United States Attorney (William L. 

Lutz, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Charles Louis Roberts (Robert Ramos and Gary Hills with him on the 

brief), El Paso, Texas, attorney for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before ANDERSON and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and THEIS*, District 

Judge. 

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. 

*The Honorable Frank G. Theis, Senior Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 1 
Brian Paul Johnson (Johnson) appeals from an order of the 

district court denying his motion to suppress marijuana seized at 

a Border Patrol checkpoint from an automobile he was driving. 

Johnson was indicted and charged with possession with the 

intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l). Thereafter, Johnson filed a motion to 

suppress arguing that the Border Patrol agents lacked probable 

cause and/or consent to search the vehicle that he was driving and 

that, as such, the marijuana seized as a result of the search was 

inadmissible. 

During the suppression hearing, Border Patrol Agents Suarez 

and Velasco testified on behalf of the United States. Johnson 

testified on his own behalf. 

Agent Suarez testified, inter alia, that: he worked at the 

Las Cruces, New Mexico, Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 10 

West located approximately 20 miles west of Las Cruces; that 

Johnson, driving a 1987 Fiero, accompanied by Bobby Russell, 

arrived at the checkpoint at approximately 11:35 p.m.; when a car 

pulls into the checkpoint, he questions the occupants of the 

vehicle as to their citizenship; when asked, both Johnson and 

Russell claimed to be citizens of the United States; while 

questioning Russell and Johnson, he detected the smell of alcohol; 

based on his past experience, he did not believe that Johnson's 

and Russell's appearances were consistent with the vehicle; 

suspecting that the vehicle might be stolen, he questioned Russell 

as to the ownership of'the vehicle; the majority of people stopped 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 2 
at the checkpoint produce a vehicle registration; after neither 

Johnson nor Russell were able to produce a registration form 

(although Johnson did produce an insurance form), he directed the 

vehicle to "secondary inspection" very close by for further 

investigation as to the ownership of the vehicle; after the 

vehicle was at the secondary inspection point, Johnson became 

verbal; Russell stepped out of the car when Agent Velasco walked 

up to the car; when Russell got out of the vehicle, Agent Valasco 

noticed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in plain view; 

and he verified that the cigarette was marijuana. 

On cross-examination, Agent Suarez testified that: when he 

asked Johnson and Russell about their citizenship, Johnson 

answered that they were both United States citizens; neither 

Johnson nor Russell appeared to be foreign or alien; based on his 

past experience and the inability of Johnson or Russell to produce 

a vehicle registration form, they were sent to secondary 

inspection; in about 95% of the cases, the cars he had suspected 

of being stolen were actually stolen; not every vehicle going 

through the checkpoint is questioned as to ownership; there are 

people dressed like Johnson and Russell passing through the 

checkpoint on legitimate travel; he would detain a vehicle if he 

believed that a violation had been committed in his presence or 

that the vehicle might be stolen; the insurance form produced by 

Johnson appeared to be proper; Johnson told him that the car 

belonged to his girlfriend and that she had loaned it to him; and 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 3 
he did not personally observe Agent Velasco find the marijuana 

cigarette inside the vehicle. 

Agent Valesco testified that: he encountered Johnson as he 

walked to the secondary inspection; Johnson was extremely loud and 

too close to Agent Suarez for comfort; Russell got out of the car 

without being asked; after Russell exited the car, he saw what 

appeared to be a large marijuana cigarette on the seat; and the 

vehicle was searched after "we'' confirmed that it was a marijuana 

cigarette. 

On cross-examination, Agent Valesco testified that: as he 

Johnson, Johnson stepped back a 

the car when he walked up to the 

approached Agent Suarez 

little; Russell ·got out 

and 

of 

passenger door; when Russell got out, Valesco saw what appeared to 

him to be a marijuana cigarette; after seeing the marijuana 

cigarette, he advised both Johnson and Russell to step inside the 

trailer; and, during his investigation, he determined that both 

Johnson and Russell were United States citizens. 

Johnson testified that: when Agent Suarez asked about their 

citizenship, he and Russell replied that they were United States 

citizens; he produced a valid California driver's license after 

Agent Suarez asked for his identification; Agent Suarez pulled 

them over to secondary after Russell could not produce any 

identification; once in secondary "the agent" asked for the 

registration for the car; because there was a lien on the car, all 

he could produce was an insurance statementi the car belonged to 

his girlfriend and he had permission to drive it; he never gave 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 4 
the agents permission to search the car; and, when Agent Suarez 

asked if it was okay to search the car, he said no. 

On cross-examination, Johnson testified that he and Russell 

had not been drinking and that as far as he knew there was never a 

marijuana cigarette in the car. 

Following the hearing, the district court entered an order 

denying Johnson's motion to suppress. The court found that there 

was "sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion of 

criminal activity to justify a secondary stop" and "sufficient 

evidence of probable cause to search the vehicle based on the 

marijuana cigarette observed in plain view during the secondary 

stop." (R., Vol. I at p. 11). 

Johnson subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea 

reserving the right to seek appellate review of the district 

court's denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Johnson 

contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to suppress the 

evidence because the seizure of Johnson and his vehicle violated 

the fourth amendment, and (2) failing to suppress the evidence 

because the duration and scope of his detention and that of his 

vehicle exceeded the constitutional limits applicable to 

checkpoints. 

I. 

Johnson contends that the trial court erred in failing to 

suppress the evidence "because the seizure of the defendant and 

his vehicle" violated the Fourth Amendment. Johnson quotes from 

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 557-558, 567 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 5 
(1976) for the propositions that: routine checkpoint stops involve 

only a brief detention of travelers during which all that is 

required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a question or 

two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right 

to be in the United States; neither the vehicle nor its occupants 

are to be searched and visual inspection of the vehicle is limited 

to what can be seen without a search; and, checkpoint searches are 

cqnstitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to 

search. Specifically, counsel for Johnson contended at oral 

argument that Customs agents are authorized only to make limited 

inquiries at checkpoint stops relative to citizenship and that 

they are not authorized to inquire about the ownership of a 

vehicle which is driven into the checkpoint. 

contention. 

We reject this 

The government responds that the denial of a motion to 

suppress must be upheld unless clearly erroneous and that the 

evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the 

government. See United States v. Cooper, 733 F.2d 1360, 1364 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1255 (1984); United States v. 

Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Border agents may question occupants of a vehicle concerning 

their citizenship and to explain suspicious behavior. In United 

States v. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888, 891 (10th Cir. 1986), we held: 

Defendant was 

inspection area of 

checkpoint •••. 

detained at 

a permanent 

* * * 

-6-

a secondary 

Border Patrol 

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 6 
The border agent may 

passengers about their 

status, and ask them 

circumstances .... 

question the driver and 

citizenship and immigration 

to explain suspicious 

* * * 

The Fourth Amendment does not require police 

officers to close their eyes to suspicious 

circumstances .••. As the Supreme Court stated 

in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S. Ct. 

1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed2d 612 (1972), quoted with 

approval in Hayes v. Florida, __ U.S. , , 

105 S. Ct. 1643, 1647, 84 L. Ed.2d 705, 710 (1985), 

in addressing the reach of a Terry stop: 

[a] brief stop of 

individual, in order 

identity or to maintain 

momentarily while 

a suspicious 

to determine his 

the status quo 

obtaining more 

information, may be 

light of the facts 

at the time. 

most reasonable in 

known to the officer 

However., detention and search beyond a routine Customs inspection 

may be undertaken only upon "a 'reasonable suspicion' standard 

justified by a particularized and objective basis for suspecting 

the particular person of [a crime]." United States v. Carreon, 

872 F.2d 1436, 1440 (10th Cir. 1989), citing United States v. 

Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 541 (1985). 

In United States v. Sokolow, 109 S. Ct. 1581 (1989), the 

Court opined: 

The concept of reasonable suspicion, like probable 

cause, is not 'readily, or even usefully, reduced to a 

neat set of legal rules.' Gates, supra at 232. We 

think the Court of Appeals' effort to refine and 

elaborate the requirements of 'reasonable suspicion' in 

this case create unnecessary difficulty in dealing with 

one of the relatively simply concepts embodied in the 

Fourth Amendment. In evaluating the validity of a stop 

such as this, we must consider 'the totality of the 

circumstances the whole picture.' United States v. 

Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). 

109 S. Ct. at 1585. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 7 
The government points out that Agent Suarez properly directed 

the car to secondary inspection because he believed the car was 

stolen after Johnson was unable to produce a registration form; 

the car was searched only after the discovery of the marijuana 

cigarette in plain view; Border Patrol agents may question the 

occupants of a car about their citizenship, immigration status, 

and to explain suspicious circumstances; that in view of Johnson's 

unkempt appearance, the odor of alcohol, and his inability to 

produce a registration, Agent Suarez had reasonable suspicion to 

direct Johnson to secondary; and, under all of these 

circumstances, the district court's denial of Johnson's motion to 

suppress was not clearly erroneous. 

21 u.s.c. § 952 provides, inter alia, that it is unlawful for 

any person to import into the customs territory of the United 

States from any place outside thereof, or to import into the 

United States from any place outside thereof, any controlled 

substance identified in various schedules. The court in United 

States v. Doyal, 437 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1971) observed that the 

purpose of this act was to eliminate all traffic in narcotics in 

the United States, except for legitimate medical purposes, by 

preventing uncontrolled drug importation. 

21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l) provides, inter alia, that it is 

unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess with 

intent to distiibute a controlled substance. This court upheld 

the actions of Customs officers who monitored by radar and inflight tracking a plane observed heading north in a drug smuggling 

corridor in New Mexico under highly suspicious circumstances. The 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 8 
plane was ultimately searched, without a search warrant, after it 

landed at Durango, Colorado. We observed that Customs Officer 

Haran had investigated more than 200 smuggling cases, 95 percent 

of which had proven to be drug smuggling flights. We there 

affirmed appellant Smith's convictions on charges of possession 

with intent to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. §§ 84l(a)(l) 

and 84l(b)(l)(B), importation of marijuana in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a) and (b)(2), and smuggling goods into 

the United States in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 545. United States 

v. Smith, 797 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1986). 

In United States v. Medina-Flores, 477 F.2d 225 (10th Cir. 

1973), we held that Customs officials who had probable cause to 

believe that the subject vehicle carried narcotics imported in 

violation of law were not limited to investigate solely for the 

presence of illegal aliens, citing to United States v. McCormick, 

468 F.2d 68 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 927 (1972), 

United States v. Anderson, 468 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1972), and 19 

u.s.c. § 482. 

In United States v. McCormick, supra, we held that 

immigration officers and United States Customs agents are not 

limited to investigate solely for the presence of illegal aliens; 

We specifically pointed to 21 u.s.c. § 960(a) which relates to the 

importation of narcotic drugs into the United States and 49 u.s.c. 

§§ 781, 782 and 787 where marijuana is defined as a narcotic drug, 

constituting 

forfeiture. 

a "contraband article" subject to seizure and 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 9 
In United States v. Anderson, supra, we held that where 

border patrol agents stopped a vehicle at a checkpoint to search 

for aliens and the officers noticed the odor of marijuana and saw 

an expended marijuana cigarette in an ashtray, the officers had 

probable cause to search the vehicle without a search warrant. 

The checkpoint in Anderson was 98 air miles from the Mexican 

border. Conviction was had under 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l). 

In our case, Agent Suarez testified that he directed Johnson 

to the secondary inspection site based on his past experience and 

his belief that the car might be stolen because of Johnson's 

failure to produce a registration. Johnson testified: 

Q. [Defense Counsel] What did he say to you, if 

anything, as you drove up? 

A. [Mr. Johnson] Drove up. We slowed down to the booth 

there and he asked us our citizenship. I replied, I 

believe, U.S. or American and the passenger did, also. 

Q. What is the next thing that happened? 

A. The next thing that happened was, Agent Suarez asked 

me for my identification and which I produced a 

California driver's license. 

* * * 

Q. Did he ask you at that point to pull over to 

secondary? 

A. No. He then 

secondary -- I mean 

Russell if he had 

replied he did not. 

asked Mr. Russell to pull over to 

-- I'm sorry. He then asked Mr. 

any identification and Mr. Russell 

Q. Did Agent Suarez ask you, before you went to 

secondary, about documents concerning the ownership of 

the vehicle? 

A. No. He pulled us over to secondary after Mr. Russell 

could not produce any identification. (emphasis 

supplied). 

-10-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 10 
(R., Vol. II at pp. 39-40). 

We must consider the 

hearing in the light 

evidence addressed at a suppression 

most favorable to the prevailing party. 

United States v. Carreon, supra, p. 1441, citing United States v. 

Gay, 774 F.2d 368 (10th Cir. 1985). Here, Agent Suarez testified 

that he directed the vehicle to secondary inspection after he had 

detected the odor of alcohol, his belief based on his past 

experience that Johnson's and Russell's appearance was not 

consistent with the car, and Johnson's failure to produce a 

registration form for the car. 

After Johnson failed to produce a registration form, Agent 

Suarez had a· reasonable ~uspicion under United States v. Carreon, 

supra, to direct Johnson to secondary inspection to verify the 

ownership of the car. The Fourth Amendment does not require 

police officers to close their eyes to suspicious behavior. United 

States v. Espinosa, supra. 

Furthermore, Agent Suarez properly directed the car to 

secondary inspection after Russell failed to produce any 

identification. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, (upholds 

the validity of a ''brief detention of travelers" at checkpoints 

for "a response to a brief question or two and possibly the 

production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United 

States." 428 U.S. at 558, quoting United States v. BrignoniPonce, 422 U.S. 873, 880 (1975)). 

Johnson and Russell were properly directed to the secondary 

inspection after Russell could not produce any identification and 

after they failed to produce a registration form. Once there, the 

-11-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 11 
search of the vehicle, predicated upon Agent Valesco's observation 

of a large marijuana cigarette in plain view inside the car, was 

valid. 

We hold that the search was not in violation of Johnson's 

Fourth Amendment rights and that the district court did not err in 

denying Johnson's motion to suppress. 

II. 

Johnson contends that the scope and duration of the instant 

stop and detention exceeded the limitations placed on such stops 

and detentions by United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. 

Johnson argues that under United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 

the Border Patrol agents had only the right to ask citizenship 

questions and to make a visual search; that any further detention 

and/or search required probable cause; that the continued 

detention in this case violated United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 

inasmuch as it was for the single purpose of determining whether 

the vehicle was stolen; that the probable cause utilized to 

authorize the search of the vehicle (marijuana cigarette in plain 

view) arose as a direct result of the illegal, continued 

detention; and that the exclusionary rule required suppression of 

all the evidence which flowed from the illegal, continued 

detention and search and seizure of appellant (Johnson) and his 

vehicle. 

Assuming arguendo that Agent Suarez did not have reasonable 

suspicion to direct the car to secondary inspection for further 

investigation to verify the ownership of the vehicle, still Agent 

-12-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 12 
( 

Suarez acted properly in directing the car to secondary inspection 

after Russell failed to produce any identification. JohnsQn 

testified that the car was directed to secondary inspection after 

Russell failed to produce any identification. 

AFFIRMED. 

-13-

Appellate Case: 89-2002 Document: 010110146841 Date Filed: 02/01/1990 Page: 13