T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e M ark W . B ennett , D i stri ctJudg e f or the N orthern ** D i s tr i c tof

I ow a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. LUI S ARE NA S- LOPE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10141 D . C . N o . 4 : 0 8 -cr-0 0 6 3 3 -C K JB P V -2 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona C i ndy K . J or ge ns on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: W A L L A C E and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B E N N E T T , D i stri ctJudg e. ** A ren as-L o p ez ap p eal s fro m h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess m a r i j ua na w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e unde r21 U . S . C . §§ 846, 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( v i i ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i r m. 

# FI LED JU N 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A r e n a s - L o p e z ’s a r g u m e n t f o c u s e s o n ly o n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o t i o n t o su p p ress u n d er th e F o u rth A m en d m en t . H e arg u es th ath i s w arran t l ess arre stw as no tsupp ort ed by prob abl e c ause . A r e n a s - L o p e z ’s o p e n in g b r ie f d o e s n o t p r e s e n t a n y a r g u m e n t th a t th e f a c ts foun d b y the di stri ctcourtar e i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rtprob abl e c ause . T here fore , a ny a r gum e ntde a l i ng w i th w he the rthe f a c t s f ound j us t i f

y pr oba bl e c a us e t o s t op a n d a rr e s t A r e n a s - L o p e z h a s b e e n w a iv e d . Fle is c h e rS tu d io s , I n c . v . A .V

.E .L .A ., Inc. , 654 F . 3d 958, 965 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . I ns t e a d, A r e na s - L ope z a r gue s tha tthe d i stri ctco u rterred i n co n si d eri n g an d cl earl y erred i n fi n d i n g cert ai n fact s. A ren asL ope z a s s e r t s tha tw he n the s e f a c t s a r e r e m ove d f

r om the a na l y s i s , the r e i s no pr oba bl e c a us e . T he r e f

or e , i n a ddr e s s i ng hi s a r gum e nt , w e l i m i tour s e l ve s t o the narr ow qu es t i on of w hether the di stri ctcourterre d b y c on si deri ng or cl ea rl y e rr ed b y fi n d i n g th e d i sp u t ed fact s. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n f i ndi ng tha tA r e na s - L ope z l ooke d “s u rp r is e [ d ],” “c o n c e rn [ e d ]” o r“a la r m [ e d ]” w h e n h e n o tic e d th e a g e n t in a v e h ic le i n th e l an e n ex tt o h i s, b ecau se th ati s a reaso n ab l e i n t erp ret at i o n o f th e t est i m o n y, w hi c h de s c r i be d A r e na s - L ope z ’ s e xpr e s s i on a s a n “ oh no” r e a c t i on. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n fi nd i ng thatA gentW hi tney pas se d the pu rpl e E xp l orerw hi l e c hasi ng the w hi t e D od ge because the di stri ctcourtnever3

foun d thi s f

ac t

— i nst ea d i tfoun d that“ W hi tney bel i eves he pass ed the F ord E xp l orer . ” T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otre l y on W hi tney’ s bel i ef , and A re nas- L op ez h a s n o t s h o w n h o w W h itn e y ’s s u b je c tiv e b e lie f

is r e le v a n t. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n c ons i de r i ng A r e na s - L ope z ’ s ve ry ha r d l ook a tA ge ntW hi tne y a tthe r e s ts t op be c a us e a c our ti s r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rthe “to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” w h ic h in c lu d e s in n o c e n t a n d in c r im in a tin g f a c ts a lik e . U ni t ed Stat es v. A rvi

zu , 534 U . S . 266, 274–75 ( 2002) ( r e qui r i ng c ons i de r a t i on of

i nnoc e ntf

a c t or s s uc h a s l ooki ng i n as t or e w i ndow , dr i vi ng a m in iv a n , lo o k in g a w k w a r d w h e n w a v in g , ta lk in g w ith f r ie n d s , o ra n y o th e ra c ts

“ consi st entw i th i nn ocenttra vel ”) . A re nas- L op ez ’ s a rgum enti s bas ed on hi s e ff ort t o r e i ns t a t e the di vi de - a nd- c onque rappr oa c h, a l r e a dy r e j e c t e d i n A rvi

zu , by excl ud i ng i nn ocentfa ct s f rom the t ot al i ty a nal ys i s. T he di stri ctcourtw as re qu i re d to c o n s id e ra ll f

a c to r s , r e g a r d le s s w h e th e ro th e r s w o u ld c o n s id e rth e m o r ig in a lly i nn ocentor i ncri m i nat i ng . A re nas- L op ez ’ s a rgum entthata par t i cul arfa ctw as i nnoc e ntm i s s e s the poi nt . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n c ons i de r i ng the t es t i m on y thatA re nas- L op ez gave a “ very hard” l oo k atA gentW hi tney. E ven w ha tm i ghtothe rw i s e be i nnoc e ntc onduc tc a n, i n the t ot a l i ty of the c a s e , be s ig n if ic a n t.4

S om e m i ghtthi nk a c a s ua l l ook t o s a t i s f y A r e na s - L ope z ’ s c ur i os i ty c oul d be im p o r ta n t b u t th e e v id e n c e a c c e p te d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d o e s n o t s h o w a c u r io s ity type of l oo k. T he t es t i m on y i s thatA re nas- L op ez l oo ked “ very hard” t o see w hat W hi tney w as do i ng . Justas the “ oh no ” e xp re ss i on desc ri bed abo ve ca n sup po rt p r o b a b le c a u s e , s o c a n a n in te n s e ly o b s e r v a n t e x p r e s s io n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. E w i ng , 638 F . 3d 1226, 1232 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( c ons i de r i ng a pe r s on’ s ne r vous e x p r e s s io n ) . U l t i m a t e l y , w e ne e d notw e i gh the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the ve ry ha r d l ook, be c a us e A r e na s - L ope z ha s w a i ve d the a r gum e nttha tthe f a c t s c ons i de r e d by the d is tr ic t c o u r t d o n o t s u p p o r t p r o b ab le c a u s e . A r e n a s - L o p e z h a s lim ite d h is a r gum e ntt o w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tpe r m i s s i bl y c ons i de r e d c e r t a i n f a c t s , w i thout arg u i n g th atth e fact s fo u n d b y th e d i stri ctco u rtare i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh prob abl e c ause . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby c ons i de r i ng w he the rA r e na s - L ope z m i ght h a v e b e g u n h is tr ip in th e c ity o f D o u g la s w h e r e th e E x p lo r e rw a s r e g is te r e d . T h is di s c us s i on oc c urr e d onl y a f t e rthe di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d the f a c t s c ha l l e ngi ng A re nas- L op ez ’ s s t ory thathe had b egun hi s tri p i n S ahuari t a. T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n co n si d eri n g th e i rreg u l ari t i es i n A ren asL ope z ’ s s t ory tha the w a s a tt e ndi ng a f une r a l , be c a us e A r e na s - L ope z ’ s dr i vi ng5

patt ern w ou l d h ave r equi re d h i m t o h ave turned aroun d and headed back s o u th b o u n d a lm o s t a s s o o n a s h e a rr iv e d in S a h u a r ita . W h e th e rtru e o rn o t, it is , in the vi ew of the di stri ctcourt , an un usual dri vi ng patt ern thatm ustbe consi dere d as p arto f th e t o t al i ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rr one ous l y appl y the c ol l e c t i ve know l e dge d o c tr in e b e c a u s e A g e n ts H o u s le y a n d J a r m o n w e r e a id in g A g e n t W h itn e y in h is in v e s tig a tio n a t th e tim e o f th e a rr e s t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Je nsen , 425 F . 3d 698, 7 0 4

– 7 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to h o ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g b e c a u s e it d id n o t r e

je c t th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s c r e d ib ility f in d in g s . U

n ite d S ta te s v . R a dda tz , 44 7 U . S . 66 7, 67 6, 68 0– 81 (198 0). A FFI R M EDI a g r e e w ith th e m a jo r ity th a t th e b in d in g la w o f th is c ir c u it in s tru c ts th is 1 p a n e l to r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re rr o r , s e e , e .g ., U ni t ed Stat es v. Je nsen , 425 F . 3d 698, 704 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , butI di s a gr e e w i th the appl i c a t i on of

thi s pr e c e de ntt o c a s e s i n w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our t , l i ke us , r e l i e s on the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s e vi dent i ary hea ri ng . W hen t he di stri ctcourtbase s i t s f ac tual f i ndi ngs on the s a m e c ol d r e c or d a s the one be f or e thi s c our t , w e s houl d, a c c o r d in g ly , a f

f o r d le s s d e f

e r e n c e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t. No n e th e l e s s , m y d i s a g r e e m e n twi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , a s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w, ul t i m a t e l y l i e s notw i th i t s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tbut , r a the r , the i nf

e r e nc e s i tdr e w f

r om th o s e f a c ts . U ni t ed Stat es v. A re na s-L op ez , 11- 10141 B E N N E T T , D is tr ic t J u d g e , c o n c u rr in g in p a r t a n d d is s e n tin g in p a r t: I a gree w i th the m aj ori ty’ s c on cl usi on thatthe di stri ctcourtw as no tre qu i re d t o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng , as i tdi d n otre j ec tthe m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s f ac tual fi n d i n g s. I resp ect fu l l y d i ssen t , h o w ev er, fro m th e m aj o ri ty’ s reso l u t i o n o f A ren asL o p ez’ s cl ai m th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d et erm i n i n g th atp ro b ab l e cau se e x is te d to a rr e s t th e d e f

e n d a n t. I di s a gr e e tha tA r e na s - L ope z c abi ne d hi s a r gum e ntt o the s ol e i s s ue of w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c o n s id e r in g a n d c le a r ly e rr e d in f in d in g c e r ta in 1 f a c ts a n d , th e r e f

o r e , w a iv e d a n y a r g u m e n t th a t th e f a c ts h e r e a r e in s u f

f ic ie n t to supp ortprob abl e c ause . R ather, A re nas- L op ez broadl y f ra m ed the i ss ue pres ent ed to th is p a n e l a s w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e te r m in in g th e r e w a s p r o b ab le cau se t o arrestth e d efen d an t . T el l i n g l y, th e g o v ern m en td o es n o tp arse A ren asL o p ez’ s arg u m en tl i k e th e m aj o ri ty d o es an d , t o th e co n trary, treat s A ren as

# FI LED JU N 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

L op ez ’ s bri ef

as ar gu i ng broadl y thati nsuffi ci entfa ct s s up po rt ed the di stri ct c our t ’ s f i ndi ng of pr oba bl e c a us e . T he gove rnm e ntde vot e s i t s br i e f t o e xpl a i ni ng h o w th e f

a c ts h e r e d o s u p p o r t p r o b ab le c a u s e a n d r e le g a te s to f o o tn o te s its a r g u m e n ts a s to w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in c o n s id e r in g o rf in d in g a n y f

a c ts . N ot abl y, no w here i n i t s bri ef do es the go vernm entcont end t hatA re nas- L op ez w a iv e d th e a r g u m e n t th a t th e f a c ts w e r e in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t p r o b ab le c a u s e . M oreover, even acc ept i ng the m aj ori ty’ s i nt erpret at i on thatA re nas- L op ez w a i ve d thi s a r gum e nt , I w oul d e xe r c i s e ourdi s c r e t i on t o r e a c h the que s t i on of w hether the fa ct s s up po rtprob abl e c ause , as I f i nd thatthi s i ss ue qu al i fi es as an exce pt i on t o the general rul e thatthi s c ou rtw i l l no tcoun t enance w ai ved a r g u m e n ts : W e “ w i l l no t ordi nari l y consi der m att er s on appeal thatar e

not s pe c i f

i c a l l y a nd di s t i nc t l y a r gue d i n appe l l a nt ’ s ope ni ng bri ef . ” Mi l l erv. Fai rc hild Indu stri es , Inc. , 797 F . 2d 727, 7 3 8 (9 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ). T h ree m ai n ex cep t i o n s t o th atr u le exi st . F i rs t , w e w i l l re vi ew an i ss ue no tpres enti n an ope ni ng br i e f

f or“ good c a us e s how n” , F ed . R . A pp. P . 2, o r “if a f a ilu r e to d o s o w o u ld r e s u lt in m a n if e s t in ju s tic e .” U ni t ed Stat es v. L oya , 80 7 F . 2d 14 83 , 14 87 (9th C i r. 19 87 ). S ec on d, “ [w ] e have di sc re t i on t o revi ew an i ss ue no tra i se d by appel l ant. . . w hen i ti s r ai se d i n the appel l ee ’ s bri ef . ” In r e R i v e rs i de L i nde n I

nv e s tm e nt

C o. , 9 4 5 F .2 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T h ir d , w e m a y r e v ie w a n is s u e if th e f a ilu r e to r a i s e the i s s ue pr ope r l y di d notpr e j udi c e the de f

e ns e of the o p p o si n g p arty. U ni t e d Stat e s v . Ul lah , 97 6 F . 2d 50 9, 51 4 (9t h C i r. 19 92 ). H er e, al l threeTh e a g e n t s i n v o l v e d i n A r e n a s - Lo p e z ’ s a rr e s tap p a r e n t l y s h a r e d my 2 vi e w — a tl e a s tbe f

or e A r e na s - L ope z f

i l e d a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . A l though the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our tha s “ m a [ d] e c l e a rtha ta n a rr e s t i ng of f i c e r ’ s s t a t e of m in d ( e x c e p t f

o rth e f a c ts th a t h e k n o w s ) is irr e le v a n t to th e e x is te n c e o f p r o b ab le cause, ” D even

p eck v. A l

f o rd , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , th is c a s e is e x c e e d in g ly rare— th e arresti n g ag en th i m sel f d i d n o tb el i ev e h e h ad p ro b ab l e cau se t o arrest th e d e f e n d a n t f o ra n y c r im e . T h e a rr e s tin g b o r d e rp a tr o l a g e n t, h e r e , in itia lly r e le a s e d A r e n a s - L o p e z f o rla c k o f

p r o b ab le c a u s e to a rr e s t h im . T h e a g e n t o n ly arrest ed A ren as-L o p ez aft er th e su p erv i si n g D E A ag en tt o l d h i m t o d o so ( i nt e r e s t i ngl y , the s upe r vi s i ng D E A a ge nt ’ s r e por tof the a rr e s ta l s o onl y m e nt i ons the a ge nt s ’ r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on t o be l i e ve A r e na s - L ope z w a s i nvol ve d i n drug tr a f f ic k in g , n o t p r o b ab le c a u s e ) . 3 e xc e pt i ons a r e appl i c abl e — the s e c ond a nd thi r d, c l e a r l y s o, a s the gove rnm e nt addres se d i n i t s bri ef

w hether the fa ct s s up po rtprob abl e c ause and, there fore , w o u l d n o tb e p rej u d i ced b y o u r co n si d erat i o n o f th i s i ssu e. I al so b el i ev e th e fi rst exce pt i on i s m et , as i tw ou l d b e am ani fe sti nj ust i ce t o rea d A re nas- L op ez ’ s bri ef s o n a rr o w ly a s to e x c lu d e th e is s u e a t th e h e a r t o f th is d is p u te : w h e th e rth e f a c ts supp orta f

i nd i ng of prob abl e c ause . T here fore , I w ou l d— and d o— consi der w hether there w as prob abl e c ause t o arr es tA re nas- L op ez . A l tho ug h thi s i s c ert ai nl y acl ose c as e, I di sa gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthat th e a g e n ts h a d p r o b ab le c a u s e to a rr e s t A r e n a s - L o p e z w ith o u t a w a rr a n t. T h e f a c ts m a y be s uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor tr e a s ona bl e s us pi c i on tha tA r e na s - L ope z a nd hi s c ode f e nda ntw e r e e nga ge d i n a s c outc a r - l oa d c a rdrug tr a f f i c ki ng s c e na r i o, butnot pr oba bl e c a us e . T he gove rnm e ntdi r e c t s us t o U n ite d S ta te s v . V

ita l- P a d illa , 500 2 F . 2d 64 1 (9t h C i r. 19 74 ), i n w hi ch thi s c ou rtre cogn i ze d thata s coutca r- l oad car4

sc enar i o m ay gi ve ri se t o p robabl e c ause t o arr es tthe sc ou tca r dri ver, w here s uf f i c i e ntf a c t s e xi s tt o s ugge s ttha tthe tw o ve hi c l e s a r e dr i vi ng i n t a nde m a nd c o n tr a b a n d h a s b e e n f

o u n d in th e lo a d c a r . I

d. a t643- 44. H ow e ve r , the f a c t s of V ita l- P a d illa a r e e nt i r e l y di s t i ngui s habl e f r om a nd m uc h m or e s us pi c i ous tha n the f a c t s he r e : i n V

ita l- P a d illa , a ge nt s obs e r ve d tw o c a r s tr a ve l i ng thi r ty t o f or ty y a r ds apa r tdow n a n aba ndone d di r tr oa d ne a rthe bor de r , a tdus k, w i th no l i ght s on, a nd a t tw ic e th e s a f

e r a te o f s p e e d f o rth a t r o a d . I

d. a t643. H e r e , i n c ontr a s t , the bo rderpatrol agentfi rs tob se rved A re nas- L op ez ’ s vehi cl e e ar l y on a S un day m orni ng tr a ve l i ng on a n on- r a m p t o m e r ge ont o a m a j ori nt e r s t a t e , w hi l e the al l eged l oad car w as j ustabou tt o turn o nt o the on -r am p. O nce on t he i nt er st at e, the ve hi c l e s w e r e appr oxi m a t e l y a qua r t e rm i l e apa r t , a nd the a ge ntpa s s e d the v e h ic le s w ith h is c ru is e s e t a t s e v e n ty - f iv e o re ig h ty m ile s a n h o u r . T h e r e is nothi ng s us pi c i ous , ore ve n r e m a r kabl e , a boutthi s dr i vi ng pa tt e rn. M o reo v er, th ere i s ab so l u t el y n o th i n g si g n i fi can tab o u tth e factth atA ren asL op ez ’ s vehi cl e w as re gi st er ed i n D ou gl as . W here a vehi cl e i s r egi st er ed i nd i ca t es v e ry little a b o u t w h e r e a v e h ic le b e g a n a n y p a r tic u la rtr ip . S o m e o n e m a y c o m m u te ov eran ho ur t o w ork each day; i f s he i s pul l ed ov erw hi l e outgrabbi ng l un ch, do es the fa ctthather c ari s r egi st er ed i n a coun ty a n h ou r a w ay m ake her “ st ory” that she w as dri vi ng fr om her w ork t o l un ch suspi ci ou s? F urtherm ore, the l ac k o f a nT h is c o u r t, in w h a t it h a s d e s c r ib e d a s a “d r iv in g - w h ile - H is p a n ic c a s e ,” 3 r e je c te d o f f ic e r s ’ s u s p ic io n s “p r e m is e d o n a p r o f ile th a t c o u ld ‘c e r ta in ly f it hu nd re ds of tho usands of l aw abi di ng dai l y use rs of the hi gh w ay s. ’ ” See U ni t ed S ta t es v. O sb o rn , 203 F . 3d 1176, 1182 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. R odri gu ez , 976 F . 2d 592, 596 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ) ( de s c r i bi ng R odri gu ez ’s h o ld in g ) . 5 ov erni gh tbag i n A re nas- L op ez ’ s vehi cl e i s notatal l suspi ci ou s. A re nas- L op ez st at ed thathe w as tra vel i ng fr om S ahuari t a t o N og al es for afuneral . T he tw o ci t i es a r e onl y f

i f ty m i l e s apa r t

— w hy w oul d s om e one br i ng a n ove rni ghtba g f ora r ound tri p o f l ess th an tw o h o u rs? A s th is d e c is io n is a m e m o r a n d u m d is p o s itio n , I d o n o t c o n tin u e o n to lis t a ll the fa ct s a nd expl ai n, i n d et ai l , m y di sa gree m ent s w i th the di stri ctcourtas t o eac h one . I s i m pl y not e tha tI a gr e e w i th M a gi s tr a t e J udge V e l a s c o tha tthe gove rnm e nt ha s r e - s pun r e a s ona bl e s us pi c i on i nt o pr oba bl e c a us e he r e . I c a nnothe l p but wo n d e r : i f

Ar e n a s - Lo p e z we r e n o tHi s p a n i c , wo u l d h e e v e n h a v e b e e n p u l l e d o v e r ? Itse em s the pri m ary f

ac t or ra i si ng the agent s’ suspi ci on s w as thatA re nas- L op ez w a s “d r iv in g - w h ile - H is p a n ic .” T h e f a c ts d o n o t s u p p o r t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o s t- 3 h o c le g a l m a n e u v e r in g to s a v e its c a s e .