1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER 1–

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAUL BASURTO VALDEZ,

Defendant.

No. CR06-60Z

ORDER

Defendant Valdez’s motion to suppress and request for an evidentiary hearing, docket

no. 14, is DENIED for the reasons set forth in this Order.

(1) Stop of pickup and search of Defendant

The motion is denied as to the stop of the gray 2002 Chevrolet pickup truck

Defendant was driving on January 24, 2006. The officers had a valid warrant to seize and

search the gray 2002 Chevrolet pickup. The seizure of the pickup did not violate the Fourth

Amendment. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29 (1967). Defendant does not

challenge the search warrant for the pickup. The Defendant was driving the pickup at the

time of its seizure. As a result of the valid stop and search of the pickup, the officers had the

legal right to detain the Defendant while the search was conducted. The pickup in question

had been used in at least two control buys involving heroin in little over a week before the

Case 2:06-cr-00060-TSZ Document 17 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER 2–

stop and search, and the officers had reason to suspect that the driver of the pickup might be

involved in some type of criminal activity. The facts supporting the officers’ belief is set

forth in the search warrant affidavit of Officer C. Martin to search the pickup, Exhibit A to

the Government’s Opposition, docket no. 16. The officers had the legal right to detain the

Defendant while a search of the pickup was conducted. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S.

692, 705 (1981). The handcuffing and subsequent “pat down” search of Defendant was also

proper for officer safety. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235 (1985). The

officers found “three hard bulges” which they had reasonable grounds to remove and search. 

Upon discovery that the bulges contained heroin the officers had probable cause to arrest

Defendant. See United States v. Mattarolo, 209 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2000). 

(2) Search of residence at 18311-116th Avenue SE Renton, Washington

The search warrant for the residence at 18311-116th Avenue SE, Renton, Washington,

was supported by probable cause. Officer Martin’s search warrant affidavit, Exhibit A to

docket no. 16, Bates Stamp Nos. 000033-40, provides substantial evidence to support the

probable cause. It was reasonable under all the circumstances to seek evidence of drug

trafficking at the Renton residence. See United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973,

978 (9th Cir. 2002). The search of the garage did not exceed the scope of the search warrant. 

See United States v. Furrow, 229 F.3d 805, 816 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds

by United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

(3) Defendant’s statements are admissible under Miranda

Defendant contends any statements were the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The

Defendant’s Miranda challenge must fail because the Court finds the stop of the pickup, the

search of the Defendant, and the subsequent arrest, were proper. Notably, Defendant has not

even challenged whether the waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary.

Case 2:06-cr-00060-TSZ Document 17 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER 3–

(4) No evidentiary hearing is required

No evidentiary hearing is required. The search warrant and affidavit stated probable

cause to seize the pickup and search the Renton residence and garage. The stop, search, and

arrest of the Defendant, was proper. Defendant fails to raise any issue of fact under Miranda

which would require an evidentiary hearing.

(5) Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the motion to suppress is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2006.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00060-TSZ Document 17 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 3