## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 19 99

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn

* Dis tri ct of I owa

. Sal va do r Men do za, al so kn own as *
Vict or Qui nt ero , als o k no wn as *
Arth ur Gall eg os , *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 11
Fi le d: May 14, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Sal v a d o r M en do za pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d

po ss es si on wit h in te nt t o di st rib ut e co cai ne in vi ol at io n of fed eral la w. On ap pe al

, Men do za ch al le ng es (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Men do za’s m ot io n to su pp res s 1

an d (2 ) hi s s en te nc e. W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac ts

In Ju ly of 20 07

, a co nc ern ed ne ig hb or al ert ed Io w a C it y Po li ce Dep art m en t (ICP D) Offi cer Mat th ew Han se n ab ou t “ un us ua l act iv it y ” oc cu rri ng at a res id en ce on
th e 17 00 bl oc k of Lou is Pl ace in Io wa Ci ty, Io w a ( Lo ui s Pl ace res id en ce). The

ne ig hb or rep or te d no on e ap pe ared to oc cu py th e res id en ce on a r e g u l a r b as is

, bu t

va rio us pe op le an d ve hi cl es cam e to th e res i d e n ce at “ al l di ffer en t ho ur s,” pa rk ed

th ei r ve hi cl es so m e di st an ce fro m th e res id en ce, a n d c a r r i e d pa ck ag es in an d ou t.
Upo n in ve st ig at io n, Offi cer Han se n di sc ov ered the re sid ence’s el ect ric it y se rv ic e was

in th e n am e o f Vic to r Qui nt ero

.

Neig hb or s al so sa id a m an who dr ov e a red tru ck act ed s u s p i c i o u s ly on hi s freq u e n t v i s it s to th e Lou is Pl ace res id en ce, ei th er pa rk in g th e tru ck away fro m th e

res id en ce or pa r k i n g t h e tru ck in th e ga rag e an d qu ic kl y sh ut ti ng th e do or in an

ap pa ren t effo rt to av oi d be in g se en

. Offi cer Han se n de te rm in e d th e red tru ck was

reg is te red to Mi ch ael Vale nc ia of M us cat in e, Io wa.

Neig hb or s al so rep or te d a bl ack Hum m er as so ci at ed wit h th e r e s i d e n c e, an d

ga ve Offi cer Han se n it s li cen se pl at e nu m be r. Offi cer Han s en de te rm in ed th e

Hum m er was reg is te red to Qui nt ero at an ad dr es s in th e Fo res t View Trai le r Park in

Io wa Ci t y. O f

fic er Han se n pr ev io us ly ha d rece iv ed an an on y m ou s ti p th at an

in di vi du al dri vi ng a bl ack Hum m er h ad be en sel li ng co cai ne at t he tra il er p ark

.

Offi cer Han se n co nt act ed th e Mu sc at in e Co un ty Dru g Task Fo rce r e g a r di ng
Vale nc ia ’s red tru ck an d sp ok e wit h of fic er Ard it h Orr. Offi cer Orr was fam il ia r wit h

bo th Vale nc ia an d Qui nt ero , an d su sp ect ed both w ere in vo lv ed in co cai ne di st rib ut io n

in th e Mu sc at in e area

. Offi cer Orr in fo rm ed Offi cer Han se n th at “ Qui nt ero ” was an
al ia s us ed by Men do za. Offi cer Orr ag reed to joi n Offi cer Han se n in su rv ei ll in g th e

Lou is Pla ce re si de nc e.

-2

-The su rv ei ll an ce be ga n on Aug us t 1, 20 07

, aro un d 6: 00 p.m

. At le as t 10 or 12

of fic ers in se pa rat e un marke d ve hi cl es at di ffer en t lo cat io ns pa rti ci pa te d in th e

su rv ei ll an ce. At so m e po in t, th e of fic ers rece iv ed a r a d io an no un cem en t ab ou t a

ve hi cl e m at ch in g t he de sc rip ti on of Va le nc ia ’s red tru ck lea vi ng th e are a, an d th ree

or m or e of th e un m ark ed su rv ei ll an ce ve hi cl es fo ll owe d it

. The of fic ers fo ll owe d th e

tru ck as it dr ov e to th e po st of fic e in do wnt own Io wa Ci ty an d th en ou t of to wn. The

dr iv er of th e red tru ck be ga n to dr iv e e r r a t i c a l ly—co ns ta nt ly ch an gi ng di rect io ns , dr iv in g in ci rcl es or tu rn i n g a r o u nd wit h no ap pa ren t de st in at io n; m ak in g su dd en

tu rn s, tu rn in g wit ho ut si gn al in g, an d dr iv in g in th e wro ng la ne ; or st op pi ng on th e
si de of th e ro ad so th e su rv ei ll an ce ve hi cl es wou ld dr iv e pa st

. The su rv ei ll in g of fic ers
be li ev ed th es e were co un te r-s ur ve il la nc e m an eu ve rs an d th e dr iv er of th e ve hi cl e was

aware of t he po li ce p res en ce.

The off ic ers de ci de d to di sc on ti nu e th e su rv ei ll an ce, an d s to pp ed on a gr av el

ro ad to reg ro up

. W hi le th e of fic ers were st op pe d, th e red t ru ck dr ov e pa st

. The

of fic ers de ci de d to st op th e tru ck

, so th ey pu rs ue d. The red tru ck th en pu ll ed ov er of

it s own acco rd

, an d th e dr iv er ex it ed th e ve hi cl e. Dete ct iv e Pau l Bat ch el le r of th e

ICPD St reet Cri m es Uni t act iv at ed a warn in g li gh t fo r sa fet y an d th en ex it ed hi s

ve hi cl e an d m ad e co nt act wit h t he dri ve r.

The dr iv er id en ti fie d hi m se lf as Qui nt ero , a n d ev en tu al ly pr od uc ed

id en t i f i c a t i on in th at na m e. The of fic ers su bs eq ue nt ly i de nt ifi ed hi m as Men do za.

W he n Dete ct iv e Bat ch el le r di sc ov ered Men do za sp ok e Sp an is h an d ha d ve ry li m it ed
Eng li sh la ng ua ge ab il it y , he cal le d fo r as si st an ce fro m ICP D Offi cer Je ff Fi nk

, a

hi gh ly pr of

ic ie nt Sp an is h la ng ua ge in te rp ret er. Dete ct iv e Bat ch el le r al so su m m on ed

ICPD K-9 ha nd le r Offi cer Kev in Berg an d hi s na rco ti c-d et ect io n do g Nato n. Offi cer Berg arri ve d te n to fif

te en m in ut es la te r, an d, wit h Nato n, co nd uc te d an in ve st ig at or y

sn iff on th e ex te rio r of Men do za’s ve hi cl e. Offic er Be rg an d Nat on co nd uc te d two

pa ss es

. On th e se co nd p a s s , Nato n in di cat ed at th e ve hi cl e’s dr iv er’s si de do or , si gn al in g t o Off

ic er Be rg th at Nato n h ad de te ct ed a dr ug od or

.

-3

-Offi cer Fi nk arri ve d twen ty to twen ty-fiv e m in ut es aft er rece iv in g th e cal l, jus t

as Offi cer Berg an d Nat o n f i n is he d th e sn iff

. Offi cer Fi nk be ga n tra ns la ti ng fo r

Dete ct iv e Bat ch el le r. At th e of fic ers ’ req ue st

, Men do za co ns en te d to a se arch of hi s

ve hi cl e an d hi s pe rs on

. The of fic ers di sc ov ered a cel l ph on e an d m or e th an $8 00 on

Men do za’s p ers on

. In th e v eh ic le , th e o ffi cers di sc ov ered a “ Fi x- a-Fl at ” ti re-r ep ai r

can is te r wit h a fal se bo tt om an d a hi dd en co m

pa rtment c on ta in in g c oc ai ne res id ue

.

Men do za to ld Offi cer Fi nk an d Dete ct iv e Bat ch el le r he li ve d at th e Lou is Pl ace

res id en ce. The of

fic ers req ue st ed Men do za’s pe rm is si on to se arch th e res id en ce, an d

Offi cer Fin k in fo rm ed Men do za he did no t ha ve to co ns en t to th e se arch

. Men do za
di d no t in it ia ll y ag ree to th e req ue st

. Afte r di sc us si ng th e co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm wit h

Offi cer Fi nk

, Men do za sa id he m ig ht co ns en t if th e of fic ers pr om is ed no t to qu es ti on

hi m aft erwar ds

. Offi cer Fi nk an d Dete ct iv e Bat ch el le r refu se d to ad d a cl au se to th e

co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm pr om is in g no t to qu es ti on hi m

. Me n d o z a di d no t ve rb al ly

co ns en t to a se arch of th e res id en ce an d di d no t si gn th e co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm , bu t

Men do za di d no t ob

ject whe n Offi cer Fi nk an d Dete ct iv e Bat ch el le r in fo rm ed hi m
th ey were go in g to hi s ho us e to se arch

. In fact

, Men do za ge st ur ed in th e di rect io n of

th e res id en ce i n a way

th at in di cat ed co ns en t an d t he n h ead ed to th e h ou se

.

Men do za dro ve hi s own ve hi cl e ba ck to th e Lou is Pl ace res id en ce an d le t th e
of fic ers in si de

. Men do za in fo rm ed th e of fic ers a m an na m ed Iv an or Eva n oc cu pi ed

a ba se m en t be dr oo m , an d sa i d t h e o f f i cers sh ou ld no t go do wns ta irs

. At th e

su pp res si on he ari ng , Offi cer Fi nk te st ifi ed th at

, at th e ti m e, he be li ev ed Men do za ha d

co ns en te d to a se arch of th e ba se m en t so lo ng as th e of fic ers av oi de d th is be dr oo m

. Me n d o z a was pr es en t in th e ho us e fo r th e du rat io n of th e se arch an d di d no t ob ject

to th e o ffi cers ’ se arch of t he ba se m en t.

I n t h e ba se m en t, th e of

fic ers di sc ov ered a ro om co at ed so th ic kl y wit h whi t e

res id ue th e of

fic ers in it ia ll y th ou gh t it was dr y wall du st

. A fie ld te st of t h e w h i te

po wde r in di cat ed it was , in fact

, co cai ne res id ue

. The ro om co nt ai ne d what Offi cer

-4

-Han se n d es cri be d as a sh rin e to Sai nt Mar y , wit h c an dl es ; In os it ol po wde r; s cal es ; 2

a woo de n pr es s; m ix in g bo wls an d eq ui pm en t; in du st ria l-s iz ed ro ll ers of pl as ti c wrap ;

an d ai r fil te rs or pu rif

ie rs

. In th e ki tc he n, th e of fic ers di sc ov ered woo de n bo ard s wit h

br ic k- sh ap ed ou tl in es of co cai ne res id ue an d cl ot hs on whi ch m at ch in g br ic k- sh ap ed

im pr in ts of co cai ne res id ue were vi si bl e. In Offi cer Han se n’s ex pe rie nc e, al l of th is

in di cat ed a la rg e-s cal e co cai ne op erat io n.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

Men do za was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to m an uf act ur e, di st rib ut e, an d po ss es s
wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e fiv e ki lo gr am s or m or e of co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 84 6, 84 1( a)(1 ), an d (b )(1 )(A), an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s

or m or e of co cai ne in vi ol at io n of 2 1 U

. S

. C

. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), an d (b )(1 )(B) an d 18

U.S.C. § 2. Men do za m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce de riv ed fro m th e ro ad si de st op

an d se arch of th e Lou is Pl ace res id en ce. The di st r i c t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, an d

Men do za co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d Men do za was

res po ns ib le fo r be twee n fif te en an d fif

ty ki lo gr am s of co cai n e , res ul ti ng in a ba se
of fen se le ve l of 3 4

. See Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G.)
§ 2D1 .1( C ) ( 3) (d ru g qu an ti ty ta bl e). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Men do za to two

co nc ur ren t 1 80 -m on th ter m s o f im pr is on m en t.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Mot io n to Suppr es s

Men do za arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it de ni ed hi s m ot io n to su pp res s
th e “ Fi x- a-Fl at ” can di sc ov ered du rin g th e se arch of hi s ve hi cl e a n d t h e ev id en ce
di sc ov ered du rin g th e se arch of th e Lo u i s Pl ace res id en ce. W he n rev ie win g th e
de ni al “ of a m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s de

no vo an d it s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Fras he r, 63 2 F.3 d 45 0,

45 3 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

In os it ol is a di et ary su pp le m en t t ha t ca n b e u se d t o d il ut e o r “ cu t” co cai ne

. 2

-5

-1. Tra ffi c Sto p

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t un reas on ab l e s earc he s an d

se iz ur es req ui res th at an in ve st ig at or y tra ffi c st op “ be su pp or te d by at le as t a

reas on ab le

, art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n th at c r i mi n a l act iv it y is afo ot .” Uni te d St at es v.

J o n e s , 26 9 F.3 d 91 9, 92 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ); se e al so Terry v. Ohi o, 39 2 U.S. 1

, 3 0
(1 96 8)

. W he n th e po li ce ob se rv e th e dr iv er of a ve hi cl e co m m it a t raff

ic vi ol at io n,

ev en a m in or on e, pr ob ab le cau se ex is ts to st op th e ve hi cl e. See Fras he r, 63 2 F.3 d at

45 3.

The di st ric t co ur t as su m ed

, wit ho ut de ci di ng , th e Aug us t 1 ro ad si de en co un te r

co ns ti tu te d a Fo ur th Am en dm en t se iz ur e of Men do za, an d fo u n d t h e s ei zu re was

su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se be cau se th e of fic ers (1 ) ob se rv ed Men do za co m m it ti ng

nu m ero us t r a ffi c vi ol at io ns , an d (2 ) ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e Men do za was
dr iv in g wit ho u t a dr iv er’s li cen se

. W e ag ree th e of fic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se to

co nd uc t a Fo ur th Am en dm en t se iz ur e ba se d on Men do za’s erra ti c dr iv in g an d tra ffi c
vi ol at io ns

. 3

Men do za arg ue s Off

i c e r Han se n’s te st im on y co nc ern in g Men do za’s al le ge d

tra ffi c vi ol at io ns was “ im pl au si bl e on it s face ,” Uni te d St at es v. Pro ku pe k, 63 2 F.3 d

46 0, 46 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), be cau se Offi cer Han se n’s co nt em po ran eo us po li ce rep or t

m erel y st at ed Men do za m ad e “ ran do m t u r n s an d st op s,” bu t di d no t de sc rib e an y

sp eci fic vi ol at io ns of th e tra ffi c co de

. Id

. (ex pl ai ni ng “ whe n do cu m en ts or ob jecti ve

ev id en ce co nt rad ic t th e wit ne ss ’ st or y , or th e st or y it se lf is so in te rn al ly in co ns is te nt

or im pl au si bl e o n i ts face th at a reas on ab le fact -fi nd er wo ul d n ot cred it it , th e co ur t

of ap pe al s m ay well fin d c l e a r e r r or ev en in a fin di ng pu rp or te dl y ba se d on a
cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n” ) (q uo ti ng And ers on v. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, N.C., 47 0

W e do no t de ci de whe th er th e of f i c e r s ha d pr ob ab le cau se or reas on ab le 3

su sp ic io n to co nc lu de Men do za was dri vi ng wit ho ut a dr iv er’s l ic en se

. Men do za’s
dr iv in g vi ol at io ns al on e were su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e st op

. See Fras he r, 63 2 F.3 d at
45 3.

-6

-U.S. 56 4, 57 5 (1 98 5) ) (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

. Howev er, whe n th e tri al jud ge ’s

cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n i s b as ed up on “ a co he ren t and faci al ly pla us ib le st or y th at

is no t co nt rad ic te d by ex tri ns ic ev id en ce, tha t fin di ng , if no t in te rn al ly in co ns is te nt

,

can vi rtu al ly ne ve r b e cl ear erro r.” And ers on , 47 0 U.S. at 57 5. Offi cer Han se n’s

te st im on y was co ns i s t e n t wit h hi s co nt em po ran eo us rep or t an d be li ev ab le

, so th e
di st ric t co ur t was en ti tl ed to acce pt it

. The m ere fact an in ci de nt rep or t om it s cert ai n
de ta il s is no t su ffi ci en t to ren de r th e o f f i c e r’s te st im on y co nc ern in g th e un de rlyin g

act io n fa ci al ly im

pl au si bl e.

Me n d o z a a l so co m

pl ai ns th at th e pr os ecu ti on fai le d to sh ow whi ch sp eci fic

tra ffi c la ws Men do za al le ge dl y vi ol at ed

. Thi s “fa i lu re” do es no t affe ct th e va li di ty

of th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr ob ab le cau se de te rm in at io n. The di st ric t co ur t a c c ep te d

Of f i c e r Han se n’s te st im on y th at he ob se rv ed “ tra ffi c vi ol at io ns ,” in cl ud in g “ no t

si gn al in g,

. . . [d riv in g] in ot he r la ne s of tra ffi c, [an d] dr iv in g erra ti cal ly.” Io wa la w

req ui res m ot or is ts to si gn al tu rn s an d dr iv e on th e rig ht -h an d si de of th e ro ad du rin g

no rm al op erat io ns , an d pr oh ib it s reck le ss an d care le ss dr iv in g. See Io wa Co de
§§ 32 1.3 15

, 32 1.2 97

, 32 1.2 77

, 32 1.2 77 (A). Thu s, th e of fic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se to

st op Men do za b as ed up on Men do za’s ap pa ren t v io la ti on s o f th e tr affi c la ws.

Hav in g co nd uc te d a la wfu l tra ffi c st op , th e of fic ers were t h e n ju s t i fie d in

de ta ini ng Me ndoz a fo r a tim e re ason ab ly ne ces sa ry to co nd uc t a li m it ed in ve st ig at io n. See, e.g ., Un it ed St at es v. B l o o mfiel d, 40 F.3 d 91 0, 91 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (en ba nc ).

“ An in ve st ig at iv e de te nt io n m us t be te m

po rary and las t no lo ng er th an is ne ces sa ry

to effe ct ua te th e pu rp os e of th e st op .” Id

. at 91 6 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W il li s, 96 7

F.2 d 12 20

, 12 2 4 ( 8t h Ci r. 19 92 )) (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

. At a m in im um , a

reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n can in cl ud e “ as k i n g f o r th e dr iv er’s li cen se , th e ve hi cl e’s

reg is tra ti on , as well as in qu iri ng ab ou t th e oc cu pa nt s’ de st in at io n, ro ut e, an d

pu rp os e.” Uni te d St at es v. San ch ez, 41 7 F.3 d 97 1, 97 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Mu nr oe , 1 4 3 F .3d 11 13

, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Blo om fie ld , 40 F.3d at 9 15

.

-7

-The of fic ers were en ti tl ed to in ve s t i g a t e of fic er Orr’s rep or t th at “ Vict or Qui nt ero ” was Men do za’s al ia s an d Men do za was us in g fal se id en ti fic at io n. In or de r

t o d o so , it was ne ces sa ry to su m m on a tra ns la to r; th us , it was no t un reas o n a b l e t o
de ta in Men do za fo r th e twen ty to twen ty-fiv e m in ut es ne ed ed fo r Offi cer Fi nk to

res po nd

. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Orta

, 22 8 F. App ’x 63 3, 63 4- 35 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(u np ub li sh ed pe r cu ria m ) (d eci di ng whe re a po li ce of fic er m ad e a “ di li ge nt effo rt” to

in ve st ig at e su sp ic io us ci rcu m st an ces , it was no t un reas on ab le to ex te nd th e du rat io n
of a tra ffi c st op to su m

m on a tra ns la to r); San ch ez, 41 7 F.3 d at 97 5 (co nc lu di ng a
fo rty-fiv e m in ut e in ve st ig at iv e de te nt io n w h i l e t h e po li ce ve rif ie d th e id en ti ty of a

su sp ect carr y in g su sp ic io us id en ti fic at io n di d no t ex ceed th e sc ope of an inv es ti ga to ry

tra ffi c st op ).

It i s well se tt le d th at a dr ug -d og sn iff

, wit ho ut m or e, is no t a “ ‘searc h’ wit hi n
th e m ean in g o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” Uni te d Stat es v. Pl ace, 4 62 U.S. 69 6, 7 07
(1 98 3) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. $4 04 ,90 5.0 0 in U.S. C ur re n c y, 1 8 2 F.3 d 64 3, 64 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). The ex te rio r ve hi cl e sn iff he re was co m pl et ed aro un d th e ti m e
Offi cer Fi nk arri ve d to tra ns la te ; co ns eq ue nt ly, th e dr ug -d og sn iff di d no t ex te nd th e

sc op e o r du rat io n o f th e se iz ur e in an y way

. See Ill in oi s v. Ca ba ll es , 54 3 U.S. 4 05

, 40 7- 08 (2 00 5)

. The dr

ug do g’s al ert ga ve pr ob ab le cau se to de ta in Men do za fu rth er

an d to se arch th e ve hi cl e. See $4 04 ,90 5.0 0 in U.S. Cu rren cy , 18 2 F.3 d at 64 7, 64 9.

The ro ad si de st op an d de te nt io n w e r e en ti rel y reas on ab le

, an d we de te ct no Fo ur th

Am en dm en t v io la ti on

.

2. Res id ence Sea rch

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s th e sa nc ti ty of th e ho m e ag ai ns t un reas on ab le

se arch es an d se iz ur es

. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. Abs en t a v a li d ex cep ti on to th e

warra nt req ui rem en t, a warra nt le ss se arch of a pe rs on ’s ho m e pr es um pt iv el y vi ol at es
th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. See Sch ne ck lo th v. Bu st am on te

, 41 2 U.S. 21 8, 21 9 (1 97 3)

. The po li ce m ay , of co ur se , se arch a pe rs on ’s ho m e wit h hi s or he r co ns en t, pr ov id ed

th e co ns en t is vo lu nt ary. See id

. at 22 2. The go ve rn m en t ha s th e bu rd en of sh owi ng

-8

-a reason ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve be li ev ed th e su sp ect act ua ll y co ns en te d to th e se arch

. See Uni te d St at es v. Sa n de rs , 42 4 F.3 d 76 8, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The va li di ty of

co ns en t i s a q ue st io n o f fac t, wh ic h we r ev ie w for cle ar er ro r. See i d.

The di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed th e fact ua l reco rd m ad e th is cas e a cl os e cal l. On

th e on e ha nd

, Men do za did no t exp li ci tl y st at e th e of fic ers were pe rm it te d to se arch

th e Lou is Pl ace res id en ce or si gn th e co ns en t-t o- se arch fo rm , an d th e si gn ifi can t

po li ce pr es en ce at th e ro ad si de st op an d th e res id en ce rai se th e po ss ib il it y Men do za

m erel y acq ui es ced to po li ce au th or it y

. See id

. at 77 3. On th e ot he r ha nd

, Men do za’s

g es tu res an d bo dy la ng ua ge in di cat ed hi s co ns en t. Offi cer Fi nk an d Dete ct iv e

Ba tc he ller sp eci fic al ly in fo rm ed Men do za of hi s rig ht to refu se co ns en t, an d Mendoza

cl earl y un de rs to od th is rig ht

, be cau se he in it ia ll y refu se d co ns en t an d ba rg ai ne d wit h

th e o ffi cers reg ard in g t he ter m s o f hi s co ns en t.

As th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, on ba la nc e, Men do za’s be ha vi or le ad in g up to an d

du rin g th e se arch were co ns is te nt wit h co ns en t. The reco rd do es no t in di cat e an y us e
of fo rce, co er c i o n , in ti m id at io n or de cep ti on by th e of fic ers

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Ham pt on , 26 0 F.3d 83 2, 83 5 (8t h Cir. 20 01 ) (d eci di ng th e la ck of a ny po li ce u se of

fo r ce, co erci on , or de cep ti on , an d th e fact th at th e de fen da nt le t th e po li ce in to hi s
ho m e su gg es te d th e de fen da nt co ns en te d to th e po li ce en try); Uni te d St at es v.
Glea so n, 25 F.3 d 60 5, 60 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (d et erm i ni ng th e de fen da nt ’s ge ne ral

de m ean or an d la ck of ho st il it y s u gg es te d co ns en t to th e se arch ). The di st ric t co ur t

fo un d, ba se d on al l th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces , th at Men do za vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d

to th e se arch . This fin di ng was n ot cle ar er ro r. 4

Men do za ha s no t arg ue d, an d we de cl in e to co ns id er, whe th er th e se arch of th e 4

ba se m en t exce ed ed th e sc op e of hi s ob jecti ve co ns en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Sh afer

, 60 8 F.3 d 10 56

, 10 64 -6 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ The bo un da rie s of a co ns en su al se arch are

co nf in ed to th e sc op e of th e co ns en t, whi ch is m e a s u r e d b y a st an da rd of ob jecti ve

reas on ab le ne ss .”).

-9

-B. Sent enci ng

Men do za arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n c al cu la ti ng th e qu an ti ty of dr ug s

in vo lv ed in Men do za’s co cai ne di st rib ut io n co ns pi racy. The Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on

O f f i ce pr ep ared a Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t es ti m at in g Men do za wa s

res po ns ib le fo r at le as t 15 0 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne , res ul ti ng in a ba se of fen se le ve l of

38

. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(C )(1 ) (d ru g qu an ti ty ta bl e). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d, ba se d

up on th e ev i d e n ce di sc ov ered in th e Lou is Pl ace res id en ce, th at Men do za was

res po ns ib le fo r be twee n fi fte en an d fi fty kil og ram s o f co cai ne . Men do za co nc ed ed

th e ev id en ce su pp or te d a fin di ng of fiv e to fif te en ki lo gr am s, bu t de ni ed th e ev id en ce

c ou ld su pp or t a gr eat er weig ht

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s dr ug -q ua nt it y
de te rm in at io n for clea r erro r an d will affi rm un le ss “ th e en ti re reco rd de fin it el y an d

fir m ly co nv in ces us th at a m is ta ke h a s be en m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Si caro sQui nt ero , 55 7 F.3 d 57 9, 58 1- 82 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mi nn is

, 48 9

F.3 d 3 25 , 32 9 (8 th Cir . 20 07 )).

W he n th e am ou nt of dr ug se iz ed by th e go ve rn m en t do es no t refl ect th e sc al e of th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g of fen se , as in th is cas e, “ th e co ur t sh al l a p pr ox im at e th e qu an ti ty of th e co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e” fo r

s e n te nc in g pu rp os es

. U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1, co m m en t (n .12 ). “ The co u r t

m ay m ak e a sp eci fic nu m eri c de te rm in at io n o f qu an ti ty ba se d on i mprec is e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Ro ach

, 16 4 F.3 d 40 3, 41 3 (8 t h
Ci r. 19 98 ). It “ m ay co ns id er rel ev an t in fo rm at io n wit ho ut reg ard to it s ad m is si bi li ty un de r th e ru le s of ev id en ce ap pl ic ab le at tri a l

, p r ov id ed
th at th e in fo rm at io n ha s su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi l i t y t o s up po rt it s

accu racy.” U. S.S.G. § 6 A1.3 (a).

Id . at 5 82

.

The di st ric t co ur t de cl ar e d

, “T hi s is an un us ua l cas e an d a di ffi cu lt on e to

as cert ai n dr ug qu an ti ty.” Nev ert he le ss , th e dr ug -q ua nt i t y cal cu la ti on was am pl y

su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce. As th e co ur t reas on ed

, “ Mr. Men do za’s la ck of le gi ti m at e

e mp l o ym e n t, th e cas h se iz ed fro m hi s pe rs on an d hi s res id en ces , hi s hi st or y o f

-1 0-po ss es si ng su bs ta nt ia l cas h, an d se nd in g su bs ta nt ia l cas h to M e xi co ” an d, m os t

im po rta nt ly, th e co cai ne -p ro ces si ng ro om at th e Lou is Pl ace res id en ce— whi ch was

li te ral ly co at ed in co cai ne du st an d co nt ai ne d a wid e va rie ty of co cai ne -p r o c e s s in g

pa rap h e r n a l i a—p ro vi de d am pl e ev id en ce of a co cai ne op erat io n in vo lv in g at le as t

fif te en to fif ty kil og ram s o f co cai ne , and po ss ib ly m uc h m or e.

M e nd oz a al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s dr ug -q ua nt it y fin di ng on th e

gr ou nd th at th e te st im on y of a jail ho us e in fo rm an t was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e Men do za

was a la rg e-s cal e co cai ne t r a f f i c k er de sc rib ed by th e in fo rm an t as “ Eles od ” or

“ Pri m o.” The fla w in Men do za’s arg um en t is th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t rel y on th e

in fo rm an t’s te st im on y

. W hi le th e di st ric t co ur t “ ge nu in el y en te rta in [ed ] a su sp ic io n
th at th e q ua nt it y

rev eal ed by the in fo rm an t m ay [ha ve be en ] gr eat er t ha n” th e d ru gqu an ti ty calcu la ti on th e co ur t u lt im at el y ad op te d, t he di st ric t co ur t was “ si m pl y no t

co m fo rta bl e m ak in g th at fin di ng by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Bec au se th e
di st ric t co ur

t’ s dr ug qu an ti ty de te rm in at io n was no t ba se d on th e ch al le ng ed ev id en ce,
th ere c ou ld be no erro r.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

The jud gm en t an d s en te nc e are affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-