Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02198/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

... ' 

L . D 

F J. ~ of Appta\1 United ST(':nth r.,'f'fflit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

MAY 2 O 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GUILLERMO RIVERA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 92-2198 

(D.C. No. CR-92-96) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

This is an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence seized 

at a border checkpoint. We affirrn. 1 

Defendant was stopped at a checkpoint near mile marker 35 on 

Highway 54 in Otero County, New Mexico. Because the Border Patrol 

*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. 

1 We have not been provided with 

given at the suppression hearing. 

from what appears in the briefs and 

of fact. 

a transcript of the testimony 

Our recitation of facts comes 

the district court's findings 

Appellate Case: 92-2198 Document: 010110115103 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 1 
Agent had just encountered a similar car with two hidden 

compartments, one of which contained a "sacrificial load, 112 he was 

looking for a second vehicle with the "mother load." The 

similarity in vehicles and the proximity of time caused the agent 

to become immediately suspicious of defendant's car; therefore, he 

asked defendant if he could look into the trunk. 

consented and opened the lid from inside the car. 

Defendant 

The agent saw the same type of compartment behind the rear 

seat as that which contained the sacrificial load in the previous 

car. He therefore suspected defendant's car was similarly rigged, 

and directed defendant to the secondary inspection area where he 

asked permission to use a sniffer dog to inspect the vehicle. 

Once again, defendant agreed. The dog alerted on the rear door 

and then upon the area between the seats. 

Defendant was escorted into the checkpoint office and placed 

under arrest. After being advised of his constitutional rights, 

he signed a consent to the search of his car. Approximately 115 

pounds of cocaine was discovered as a result of the subsequent 

search. 

Defendant contends the discovery of the cocaine was the 

product of an illegal search because "the evidence establishes 

that he did not voluntarily consent to open the truck [sic] of the 

vehicle." He does not discuss the subsequent consent given to use 

the sniffer dog and the written consent to search the vehicle. 

2 Contraband sent t _hough a checkpoint to divert officers from a 

larger or ·more valuable load is referred to as a "sacrificial 

load." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2198 Document: 010110115103 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 2 
i 

The trial court found that defendant voluntarily consented to 

open his trunk. Defendant fails to tell us why that finding is 

clearly erroneous.

3 He neither recites testimony nor refers to 

evidence which negates the district court's finding. Rather, 

defendant satisfies himself by merely arguing the burden to 

demonstrate voluntary consent lies upon the government and 

summarily states: "the evidence establishes that his actions in 

opening the trunk of the vehicle was [sic] merely 'acquiescence to 

a claim of lawful authority' and therefore was not voluntary." 

While the government bears the initial burden of proof in the 

trial court that consent was voluntary, once the finding of 

consent is made the burden has been satisfied. Because we cannot 

reverse a finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous, United 

States v. Gonzalez-Acosta, 989 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1993), 

appellant bears the onus of failing to establish the error. Here, 

by merely relying upon a conclusory argument, the appellant has 

not carried the day. See United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548 

(10th Cir. 1993). 

Defendant also contends the agent "exceeded his authority by 

referring [defendant] to the secondary inspection area." The 

support for this contention is the agent permitted two other cars 

to pass through the checkpoint without stopping them, and the 

reason given by the officer was not an "objective basis for 

suspecting a particular person of crime." 

3 

to 

Indeed, without a transcript of the testimony, we are 

independently determine whether this finding is 

erroneous. 

-3-

unable 

clearly 

Appellate Case: 92-2198 Document: 010110115103 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 3 
Defendant was referred to the secondary location because his 

trunk appeared to be rigged in the same manner as the one 

discovered carrying contraband only a short time before defendant 

was stopped. The district court found the agent had reasonable 

suspicion to make the referral, and we agree. As that is the only 

question raised by the defendant, we need not pursue the issue any 

further. 

AFFIRMED. 

., 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-2198 Document: 010110115103 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 4