Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02112/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Michael Starnick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

f 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

P 1 LED 

u~ice<l Scates Court of Appeals 

TP~th C.ir,., 1 i! 

MAR - 2 1990 

ROBERT L. f-IOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 89-2112 

v . 

PAUL MICHAEL STARNICK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. CR No. 88-0477 JP 01) 

(District of New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BRORBY, and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

Paul Michael Starnick was charged in a one-count indictment 

with the possession of less than fifty kilograms of marijuana, a 

Schedule I controlled substance, with an intent to distribute the 

same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l) and 21 U.S.C. § 

84l(b)(l)(D). The marijuana which formed the basis for the 

indictment was found in a vehicle driven by Starnick by a Border 

Patrol Officer at a Border Patrol checkpoint northwest of 

Lordsburg, New Mexico. Counsel filed two motions to suppress the 

use at trial of the marijuana taken from Starnick's vehicle. At 

* 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: 89-2112 Document: 01019965773 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 1 
I 

the hearing on these motions to suppress, three Border Patrol Officers testified, as well as the defendant, Starnick. The 

district court denied the motions. 

Immediately following the denial of his motions to suppress, 

Starnick entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. ll(a)(2), and he was sentenced to imprisonment for 

twenty-seven months to be followed by a three-year period of 

supervised release .and a fine of $3,000. Starnick now appeals his 

conviction and sentence. The only ground urged for reversal is 

that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

Starnick, driving a white GMC pickup with Arizona license 

plates~ pulled into a permanent checkpoint on Highway 70 about 

nine miles northwest of Lordsburg, New Mexico around 9:00 p.m. on 

October 27, 1988. Agent Hector Lara approached the vehicle, 

identified himself and asked the driver his citizenship. The 

driver, Starnick, stated that he was a citizen of the United 

States and was driving from Deming, New Mexico to Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

The pickup truck had a freshly painted white p~ywood board 

which covered the entire bed of the truck. The plywood was hinged 

at the sides and rested upon the truck's wheel wells. The placement of the board created a large area underneath the board which 

was concealed from Officer Lara's view. In this connection, 

Officer Lara testified "it looked like it was large enough to 

conceal a person or any other substance, contraband, or whatever." 

According to Officer Lara, he asked Starnick "if it was okay if he 

Appellate Case: 89-2112 Document: 01019965773 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 2 
went and looked underneath the board and he said it was okay with 

him." Thereafter, Starnick opened the tailgate and Officer Lara, 

using a flashlight, peered into the compartment. In addition to 

finding a spare tire, a tool box and a fishing pole, which 

Starnick had said were in the compartment, the officer also found 

approximately 100 pounds of marijuana wrapped in contact paper. 

Starnick was then placed under arrest and advised of his rights. 

In his testimony, Starnick contradicted Officer Lara on the 

consent issue and stated that he did not give Officer Lara consent 

to search the compartment. 

Based on the record as thus made, the district judge denied 

the motions to suppress. In so doing, the judge commented as follows: 

It will be my findings that the checkpoint on 

United States Highway 70 on October 27th, 1988 was a 

legal checkpoint, that the questions asked regarding 

citizenship were permissible, that there were suspicious 

circumstances, being a plywood covering in the bed of 

the pickup, under which an alien could have been located 

that justified asking whether the border patrol officer 

could look under the plywood. 

And I will further find that there was clear and 

positive testimony presented by the Government that 

consent to look under the plywood or underneath the 

plywood was unequivocal and specific, freely and intelligently given, without duress or coercion. So on that 

basis, I will deny the Defendant's motion to suppress 

the evidence. 

As we understand it, counsel, in the district court and here, 

concedes that the initial stop of Starnick at the permanent 

checkpoint near Lordsburg, New Mexico, did not violate the Fourth 

Amendment. Such position is in line with United States v. 

Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1975), where, at page 566, the 

Appellate Case: 89-2112 Document: 01019965773 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 3 
Supreme Court held that "stops for brief questioning routinely 

conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth 

Amendment and need not be authorized by warrant." Such being the 

case, the critical issue in this case is whether the district 

court's finding that Starnick gave his consent to Officer Lara's 

ensuing search of the area under the plywood board is supported by 

I 

the record. We conclude that it is. Officer Lara's testimony 

showed consent. The defendant's denial of any consent only posed 

a fact question to be resolved by the court. It's ruling is not 

clearly erroneous. 

Counsel also suggests that defendant was unlawfully arrested 

before giving any so-called "consent" and hence his "consent" is 

in reality "no consent." The record does not support this 

suggestion. Starnick was arrested after the marijuana was found. 

As above indicated, the initial stop and ensuing brief detention 

for limited questioning as to identity, citizenship and the like 

was valid under Martinez-Fuerte. Such limited questioning lead 

directly to the request by Officer Lara to search which, according 

to Officer Lara, was granted by Starnick, who opened the tailgate 

himself. 

The present case is similar to United States v. Espinosa, 782 

F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1986). There the driver of a vehicle stopped 

at a permanent checkpoint near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Brief 

questioning of the driver and a passenger resulted in a request by 

a Border Patrol Officer that he be allowed to search the vehicle. 

According to the Officer, the driver and the passenger both 

stated, "No problem. Go ahead." A search resulted in a seizure 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2112 Document: 01019965773 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 4 
\ 

\ 

of three packages of cocaine. After conviction, we, on appeal, 

held that the initial stop followed by brief questions about 

citizenship and immigration status was permissible under the 

Fourth Amendment and, further, that the ensuing consent was 

voluntary. In this latter connection we held that "[S]ince the 

search of defendant's automobile was not preceded by any 

impermissible seizure of his person, he cannot contend that his 

apparent consent to the subsequent search was infected by unlawful 

detention." 

Judgment affirmed . 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Mcwilliams 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2112 Document: 01019965773 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 5