T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. J O R G E M A D R O Z A - A C O ST A and P E DR O DE L GADO, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 2111 ( D. C. No . CR - 0 5 - 2 6 0 2 - M CA )

(D .N .M .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , C ir c u it J u d g e , Mc WI L L I A MS , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge.

T he governm entappea l s a di s tr i ctcourtor dergr ant i ng J or ge M adr ozaA co sta an d P ed ro D elga d o -F u n d o ra’s j oi ntm ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence . Pol i ce O ffice r S e a n H e a ly , a N e w M e x ico sta te p a tro lm a n , initia ted a sto p o f a v e h icle occupi ed byt he tw o m en bas ed on i nform at i on pr ovi ded t o a pol i ce di s pat cherby a n id e n tifie d in fo rm a n t, G a ryB u rn s. W e c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s n o t cle a rly2

err oneous fort he di s t r i ctcour tt o fi nd thatB urns di d notpr ovi de ade quat e and s peci fi c i nform at i on t o t he di s pat cheraboutw hyhe s us pect ed the van w as en g ag ed in il lega l acti v ity . B ase d o n the lim it ed info rm ati o n the d istri ct co u rt found B ur ns ’ pr ovi ded t o t he di s pat cher , w e conc l ude thatH eal ydi d nothave r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op t he van. E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3731, w e AF F I RM . I O n N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 5 , G aryB u rns w as trav eli n g w est o n Interstate 4 0 (“I40”) , en r out e t o hi s hom e i n Phoeni x, A r i zona. H e s t opped ata conve ni ence s t or e nea rm i l e mar ker267, w her e he not i ced w hathe des cr i bed as an unus ual vehi cl e, a “w hi t e, one- t on van w i th bl acke d- outw i ndow s . ” W hen he e nt er ed the sto re , B u rn s o b se rv e d n u m e ro u s “ H isp a n ic- lo o k in g ” in d iv id u a ls th a t “a p p e a re d to be a c oncentr at ed gr oup. ” A ft erhe l eftt he s t or e and r eturned t o hi s car , he w at ched thos e i ndi vi dual s – B ur ns count ed appr oxi m at el y18 or19 peopl e – ent er th e su sp icio u s-lo o k in g v a n . In iti a lly , B u rn s w ro te d o w n th e v a n ’s lic e n se p late num berand a br i ef de s cr i pt i on of the vehi cl e’ s char act er i s t i cs . A ft erfur ther r efl ect i on, he att empt ed t o cont actt he B or derPatr ol due t o hi s s us pi ci ons t hatt he in d iv id u a ls h e s a w e n te r t h e v a n w e re u n d o c u m e n te d a lie n s . B ur ns w as unabl e t o r eac h thatagenc y , butw as abl e t o s ucce s s ful l ycont act t he N ew M exi co St at e Pol i ce. Pol i ce di s pat cherA nni s s a R ay , a tr ai nee, s poke di r ect l yw i t h B ur ns . A r ecor di ng of thatconver s at i on – w hi ch i s i ncompl et e due3

t o faul t ypol i ce r ecor di ng equi pm ent– r evea l s t hatB ur ns i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as

“ G a ry ,” w a n ted to re p o rt “ a lo t o f ill e g a ls [ sic ] tra v e lin g d o w n th e h ig h w a y ,” to ld R ayhi s l ocat i on, not ed that18 or19 peopl e w er e i n an over l oaded va n, and i nfo rm ed R ayt hat he “had t he tag nu m ber and everything. ” B ecause R ayw as a tr a in e e s h e w a s n o t a b le to in p u t th is in fo rm a tio n in to th e p o lic e c o m p u te r s y s te m . R ayrelay ed the in fo rm ati o n B u rns s u p p li ed to C arm en L eyb a, he r sup erv isor, w ho pr epar ed a “ comput erai ded di s pat ch” ( “C A D ”) r egar di ng the i nci dent . T he C A D r eports how s t hata ca l l w as r ece i ved fr om a G aryB ur ns on N ovember1, 2005 at12: 46 p. m . I ti dent i fi es hi s cont actnum ber , t he ac t i vi tybei ng r eport ed as “U A D ” ( or“undocument ed al i ens ”) , not es t he ac t i vi tyw as obs erved on I - 40 near m ile m a rk e r 2 6 7 , an d in d ica tes th a t th e su sp e c t v e h icle , d e sc rib e d a s a w h ite C hevr ol etvan w i t h C al i forni a l i cens e pl at e number5N V B Y 479, w as l as ts een tr a v e lin g w e s t o n I- 4 0 . B as ed upon B ur ns ’ t i p, L eyba cont act ed N ew M exi co St at e Pol i ce O ffi cer S e a n H e a ly , w h o w a s s tatio n e d in E d g e w o o d , N e w M e x ico . L e yb a to ld H e a ly th a t a tip ste r h a d o b se rv e d a n u n u su a l n u m b e r o f p e o p le e n ter a w h ite v a n w ith C al i forni a l i cense p l at es near m i l e m arker26 7, and t hat the v an w as head i ng w est o n I- 4 0 . H e a ly b e g a n h e a d in g e a s t o n I- 4 0 in a n e ffo rt to in te rc e p t th e v e h ic le . W hi l e en r out e, he r ece i ved addi t i onal i nform at i on thatt he van ha d dark- t i nt ed w i ndow s , di s pl ay ed C al i forni a l i cens e pl at e number5N V B Y 479, and w as re g is te re d to a n in d iv id u a l n a m e d J u a n P e re z .4

O n I - 40, nearM or i art y , N ew M exi co, H eal ys pot t ed a w hi t e van w i th darkt i nt ed w i ndow s headi ng w es t . A ft ertur ni ng ar ound, H eal ybegan fol l ow i ng the van, butdi d notengage hi s emer gencyl i ght s . H eal yt es t i fi ed thatt he dr i ver l ooked bac k athi m t w i ce, butnot ed thatt hi s di d notqual i fyas unus ual . T he van w as nots peedi ng orbei ng dr i ven err at i cal l y . A ft erH eal yt r ai l ed the van for a p p ro x im a te ly fo u r m ile s , th e v a n p ro p e rl ys ig n a le d a n d e x ite d th e h ig h w a y . H e a lyfo llo w e d . W h e n th e v a n e n ter e d a tru c k sto p , H e a lysig n a led fo r th e v a n to s t op. H eal yappr oache d t he dr i ver , and r eques t ed i dent i fi cat i on fr om both the dr i verand fr ont - s eatpas s enger . B eca us e of the natur e of the s us pect ed cr i m i nal a c tiv ity , H e a lyre q u e ste d b a c k -u p a ss ista n c e . A f ter a n o th e r p o lice v e h icle arr i ved, H eal yas ked fordocument at i on fr om t he van’ s otherpas s enger s . N one w er e abl e t o compl y . H eal yt hen as ked the dr i verand fr ont - s eatpas s engerabout th e ir tra v e l p lan s. B o th sta ted th a t th e yw e re tra v e lin g f ro m H o u sto n , T e x a s to L os A ngel es , C al i forni a. A l t hough i ti s uncl earexac t l yw hen, H eal yi ns truct ed d is p a tc h to c o n ta c t th e B o rd e r P a tr o l, a n d s h o rt ly th e re a f te r t w o a g e n ts a rr iv e d . W hen thos e age nt s confi r m ed thatt he van’ s pas s enger s w er e undocument ed a lie n s , th e a g e n ts a rr e s te d th e e n tir e g ro u p . B o th th e d riv e r a n d th e f ro n t-se a t p a ss e n g e r, d e fe n d a n ts M a d ro z a -A c o sta an d D elga d o -F u n d o ra, w ere ch arg ed w ith o n e c o u n t of co n sp ir ac yto tr an sp o rt i l l egal al i ens i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( v) ( I ) , and fourcount s of5

t r ans por t i ng orai di ng and abe t t i ng the tr ans por tof i l l egal al i ens i n vi ol at i on of 8 U. S . C. § § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) , 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( I ) , a n d 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( v ) ( I I ) . On J anuary11, 2006 M adr oza- A cos t a fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s al l evi dence r el at i ng t o t he s ei zur e and s ubs equents ear ch of the van. H e ar gued thatH eal yl acke d pr obabl e ca us e orr eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o i ni t i at e the tr aff i c s t op underT erryv. O hi o, 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) . D el gado- Fundor a j oi ned thatm ot i on. O n M ar ch 10, 2006 t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed defendant s ’ j oi ntm ot i on. T he governm entnow a p p e a ls . II “I n r evi ew i ng an or dergr ant i ng a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e ac ceptt he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs unl es s cl ear l yerr oneous . . . and vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pr evai l i ng par ty . ” U ni t ed St at es v. H ol t , 264 F. 3d 1215, 1228 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( en banc ) . W e r evi ew t he ul t i m at e ques t i on of w hethert he off

i cerhad r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op the vehi cl e de novo. O rnel as v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 1 7 U .S . 6 9 0 , 6 9 9 (1 9 9 6 ). R e a so n a b le s u sp icio n d o e s “ n o t rise to th e lev e l re q u ire d fo r p ro b a b le caus e, and i tfal l s cons i der abl ys hor tof s at i s fy i ng a pr eponder ance of the ev iden ce stan d ard . ” U n it ed S tat es v . A rvizu , 5 3 4 U . S 2 6 6 , 2 7 4 (20 0 2 ). R athe r, “r eas onabl e s us pi ci on r epr es ent s a mi ni m um l evel of obj ect i ve j us t i fi cat i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M endez , 118 F. 3d 1426, 1431 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hetheran off i cerhas r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o i ni t i at e a s t op i s “notT he governm entar gued bel ow t hatH eal yhad r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op 1 t he van a nd det ai n i t s occupa nt s beca us e of hi s i ndepende ntknow l edge a nd exper i ence . I tci t ed the fol l ow i ng fac t or s i ndepende ntof B urns ’ i nform at i on purpor t edl yi n s uppor tof H eal y ’ s s t op of the vehi cl e: ( 1) H eal yi s aw ar e thatI - 40 i s a maj ors m uggl i ng t hor oughfar e fori l l egal al i ens ; ( 2) T he dr i verof the van glanced at H eal yi n the si de v i ew m i rr or; (3) T he v an h ad b l acked -outw i nd ow s; (4 ) T h e v a n e x ited th e f re e w a yo n c e H e a lyb e g a n fo llo w in g it; a n d (5 ) H e a ly (c o n tin u e d ...) 6 r eadi l y , oreven us eful l y , r educe d t o a nea ts etof l egal rul es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sokol ow , 490 U . S. 1, 7 ( 1989) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) , and i s a det erm i nat i on t hat r equi r es us t o appl ya “c om m on s ens e” appr oach, U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 271 F. 3d 1262, 1268 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . I t s exi s t ence “i s depende ntupon both the c o n ten t o f

in fo rm a tio n p o ss e ss e d b yp o lice a n d its d e g re e o f re liab ili ty . B o th fac t or s – quant i t yand qual i t y– ar e cons i der ed i n the ‘ t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s – t he w hol e pi ctur e. ’ ” A l abama v. W hi t e, 496 U . S. 325, 330 ( 1990) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C or t ez, 449 U . S. 411, 417 ( 1981) ) . T he ce ntr al qu est i on i s w hether“[b]ased up on that w ho l e picture the d et ai ning offi cers m ust have a par t i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve bas i s fors us pect i ng the part i cul arper s on s t opped of c r i m i nal act i vi t y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C or t ez, 449 U . S. 411, 417- 18 (1 9 8 1 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e b o rd e r p a tro l ag e n ts h a d p ro b a b le c a u s e t o a r r e s tt h e d e fe n d a n t s a b s e n tth e i n fo r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d b y H e a l y. M or eover , t he governm entconce des thatthe onl ybas i s forH eal y ’ s s t op of the vehi cl e i s t he i nform at i on B ur ns pr ovi ded t o the di s pat cher . T hus , bas ed on the 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 k n o w s th a t C a lifo rn ia is a s o u rc e a n d d e s tin a tio n p o in t fo r i lle g a l a lie n s . A l t hough t hi s l i ne of a r gum enthas been a bandoned on appeal , w e fe el com pell ed to bri efl yadd res s the g ov ernm ent’ s apparent bel i ef t hat the d efen dan t s’ dest i nati on of C al i forni a, a “source and dest i nati on po i nt fori l l egal al i ens, ” i s a fac t orw e s houl d cons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hetherH eal yhad r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s ear ch the van. T hi s cour thas pr evi ous l ynot ed the exc ept i onal l yw eak va l ue o f th is typ e o f

e v id e n c e in a ss e ss in g w h e th e r re a so n a b le s u sp icio n e x iste d to j us t i fya s ear ch fordrugs . W i l l i ams, 271 F. 3d at1270 ( hol di ng that , s t andi ng al one, i nform at i on t hat“a ve hi cl e hai l s fr om a purpor t ed know n drug s our ce a r ea is, a t b e st, a w e a k fa c to r in fin d in g su sp icio n o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity ” ). T h is is p a rticu lar lytru e b e c a u se so m a n yg e o g ra p h ica l lo c a tio n s h a v e b e e n fo u n d to fa ll w i t hi n t he ca t egoryof “know n drug s our ce. ” See U ni t ed St at es v. B eck, 140 F. 3d 1129, 1138 & n. 3 ( 8t h C i r . 1998) ( not i ng thatt he fol l ow i ng l ocal es have be en c h a ra c ter ize d a s “ k n o w n d ru g so u rc e s” b ylaw e n fo rc e m e n t o ff icia ls: A l buquer que, N ew M exi co; C hi cago, I l l i noi s ; D al l as , T exas ; D etr oi t , M i chi gan; E l P aso, T exas; F ortL aud erdal e, F l ori da; H ou st on , T exas; L os A ng el es, C al i forni a; L ong B eac h, C al i forni a; M i ami , Fl or i da; N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k; N ew ark, N ew J er s ey ; O nt ar i o, C al i forni a; O akl and, C al i forni a; Phoeni x, A r i zona; Por t l and, O r egon; San D i ego, C al i forni a; San Fr anci s co, C al i forni a; A r i zona; C ali fo rnia; C o lorad o ; Florida ; N ew Jerse y ; T ex as; W ash ing ton ; and the “ en ti re w es tcoas t ”) . Si nce thatdeci s i on, l aw enfor cementagent s have a dded a number of geogr aphi cal l ocat i ons t o t hatal r eadyexpans i ve l i s t . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. H or nbecke r , 316 F. 3d 40, 41 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) ( Sout hern C al i forni a) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A l eman- Fuguer eo, 117 Fed. A pp’ x 208, 209 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( A ruba, C ur aca o an d S t. M aa rt en ); U n it ed S tat es v . Iba rra-S an ch ez , 1 9 9 F . 3 d 7 5 3 , 7 5 9 (5th C ir . 1999) ( M exi co) ; U ni t ed St at es v. $30, 000 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 30 Fed. A pp’ x 473, 482 n. 5 ( 6t h C i r . 2002) ( C ol um bus , O hi o) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pi t t s , 322 F. 3d 449, 451- 52 ( 7t h C i r . 2003) ( N or t hern C al i forni a) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K agur as , 183 Fed. A pp’ x 783, 784- 85, 790 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( Seatt l e, W as hi ngt on; B r i t i s h C ol um bi a, C anada ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D eG as s o, 369 F. 3d 1139, 1142 n. 2 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (C hihuahu a, M exico) ; H urn v. U nit ed S t at es, 22 1 F . S up p. 2d 49 3, 50 3 (D . N . J. 2 0 0 2 ) ( J a ma i c a ) ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ho n g l a - Ya mc h e , 5 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 4 , 7 5 ( D. M a s s . 1 9 9 9 ) ( C a m e ro o n ; W e s t A f ri c a ). T o th e e x ten t th a t law e n fo rc e m e n t o fficia ls s e e m p rim e d to b e g in i dent i fy i ng “know n i l l egal al i en comm uni t i es ” thi s t ype of e vi dence appea r s t o be o f m in im a l, if

a n y , e v id e n tia ry v a lu e . 7 Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n W hi t e, ouri nqui ryi n thi s cas e i s t w o- fol d: ( 1) W hat8

r el i abl e i nform at i on di d B ur ns pr ovi de t o the di s pat cher ? and ( 2) W as t hat i nform at i on s uffi ci entt o pr ovi de H eal yw i th r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op the van? A A s not ed above , w e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs as t o w hat i nform at i on w as pr ovi ded undert he “c l ear l yerr oneous ” s t andar d. H ol t , 264 F. 3d a t 1 2 2 8 . “[ A ] fin d in g is ‘c lea rlye rro n e o u s’ w h e n a lth o u g h th e re is e v id e n c e to s uppor ti t , t he r evi ew i ng cour ton the ent i r e evi dence i s l eftw i th the def i ni t e and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed. ” A nder s on v. C i tyof B es s emer , 470 U . S. 564, 573 ( 1985) . “I f the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s acc ountof the evi dence i s pl aus i bl e i n l i ghtof the r ecor d vi ew ed i n i t s ent i r ety , t he courtof appea l s m aynotr ever s e i teven though convi nced thathad i tbeen s i t t i ng as t he tr ie r o f fa c t, it w o u ld h a v e w e ig h e d th e e v id e n c e d iffe re n tly.” Id . a t 5 7 3 -7 4 . I n as s es s i ng t he i nform at i on pos s es s ed bya l aw - enfor cementoffi ceratt he tim e o f a sto p , w e a p p lyth e “ fe llo w o ffice r” ru le. T h is re q u ire s u s to lo o k n o t to w h at th e o fficer h erse lf k n ew , b u t t o “the co ll ec ti v e k n o w ledg e o f a ll the o fficers in v o lv e d .” U n ited S tate s v . H in ojo s, 1 0 7 F .3 d 7 6 5 , 7 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h is i ncl udes anyi nform at i on t hatw as convey ed byan i nform antt o a pol i ce di s pat cher . I d. ; W hi t e, 496 U . S. at328- 30 ( 1990) ; U ni t ed St at es v. E l ki ns , 70 F. 3d 81, 83 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( “Ti ps , even i f anonym ous , coupl ed w i th i ndepende nt p o lic e w o rk , p ro v id e re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n to w a rr a n t a n in v e s tig a tiv e s to p .” ). B ur ns s poke onl yt o di s pat cherR ay , and thus w e mustdet erm i ne w hatS p e c ifica lly , B u rn s a lleg e d th a t h e w a s s u sp icio u s o f th e v a n a n d its 2 occupa nt s beca us e: ( 1) T w o of the i ndi vi dual s i n the gr oup appea r ed t o be guar di ng t he other s ; ( 2) O ne of thos e men w as w ear i ng a “boone y ” hatand appea r ed t o have a s m al l obj ect– pos s i bl ya kni fe – a t t ache d t o hi s bel t ; ( 3) W hen th e g ro u p e n ter e d th e v a n , the yo p e n e d th e v a n d o o r o n lyw id e e n o u g h th a t a s i ngl e per s on coul d ent er , pr event i ng onl ooker s fr om peer i ng i ns i de the van; and (4 ) A s h e w a s le a v in g th e sto re , h e g lan c e d a t a n e w sp a p e r a rticle sta tin g th a t if an undocument ed al i en made i tpas tt he U . S. - M exi co bor dert he cha nce thatt he a lie n w o u ld b e a p p re h e n d e d w a s a k in to th e c h a n c e o f b e in g s tru c k b ylig h tn in g . 9 i nform at i on he conve y ed t o R ay . O urt as k on appea l i s m ade mor e compl i cat ed b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t m a k e a s p e c ific n u m b e re d fin d in g o n th is p o in t. R e a d in g th e o p in io n a s a w h o le, h o w e v e r, th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t o n ly li m it ed info rm ati o n w as fo rw ard ed b yB u rns to d ispa tche r R ay : th e v an ’s “c o lor, l i cense [p l at e] num ber, [a de scr i pti on t hat i thad ] bl acked -outw i nd ow s, [and i t s] l ocat i on, di r ect i on of tr avel , and numberof occ upant s . ” A lth o u g h B u rn s te stified th a t h e p ro v id e d a d d iti o n a l in fo rm a tio n to di s pat cherR ayaboutw hyhe s us pect ed the van’ s occupa nt s w er e undocument ed, 2 t he di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed thi s t es t i m ony , s t at i ng “I fi nd thatM r . B ur ns di d not conveyenough s peci fi c i nform at i on aboutt he r eas ons w hyhe bel i eved the van and i t s occupa nt s w er e s us pi ci ous . ” I m por t ant l y , t he governm entdoes not chal l enge the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng thatB ur ns di d notpr ovi de i nform at i on about hi s s us pi ci ons . B as ed on ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d as a w hol e, v iew in g th e fa c ts in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n ts a s w e a re re q u ire d to d o , se e H o lt, 264 F. 3d at1228, w e ca nnots aythatw e have a “de fi ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on”T o t he ext entt he di s t r i ctcourtbel i eved i tw as cr i t i cal t hatt he per s on t hat 3 a c tu a llysp o k e to B u rn s te stif ya t trial, w e n o te th a t u n d e r th e fe llo w o ffice r ru le it i s i m m at er i al w hethert he per s on t hats poke t o the i nform antt es t i fy . I ns t ead, t he i nqui r yi s m er el yw hethert he i nform antactual l ypr ovi ded the i nform at i on t o a pol i ce offi cerordi s pat cher . H i noj os , 107 F. 3d at768. W e al s o not e thatt he fel l ow offi cerrul e does nots t and fort he pr i nci pl e thatan off i cerhas al l t he i nform at i on know n t o bot h t he ci t i zen- i nform antand the off i cer s i nvol ved i n t he i nves t i gat i on, as t he governm ents ugges t s . O nl yt he i nform at i on the ci t i zen p ro v id e d to law e n fo rc e m e n t p e rso n n e l m a yfo rm th e b a sis fo r re a so n a b le s u s p ic io n . S e e H in ojo s , 1 0 7 F .3 d a t 7 6 8 . D efe ndant s ar gue thatnone of the i nform at i on B ur ns pr ovi ded w as 4 re liab le. In d e ter m in in g th e re liab ili tyo f in fo rm a tio n su p p lied b ya n in fo rm a n t, w e cons i dert he cr edi bi l i t yorver aci tyof the i nform ant , t he bas i s of the in fo rm a n t’s k n o w led g e , an d th e e x ten t to w h ich th e p o lice a re a b le to i n d e p e n d e n t l yv e r i f

yt h e r e l i a b i l i tyo f

t h e t i p . W h i t e , 4 9 6 U. S . a t3 2 8 - 3 2 ; Ad a ms v. W i l l i ams, 407 U . S. 143, 147- 48 ( 1972) . I nform at i on thati s gi ven byan i dent i fi ed i nform antw i t h fi r s t - hand know l edge i s ent i t l ed t o gr eat erw ei ght . See U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 364 F. 3d 1185, 1190- 91 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J enki ns , 313 F. 3d 549, 554 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatt he (c o n tin u e d ...) 10 t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng on t hi s poi ntw as err oneous . See A nder s on, 470 U . S. at573. N ei t hert he C A D r eportnorthe r ecor di ng of B urns ’ conver s at i on w i t h di s pat cherR ayi ndi cat es t hatB ur ns pr ovi ded i nform at i on aboutw hyhe s us pect ed the van’ s occupa nt s w er e undocument ed al i ens . M or eover , nei ther L eyba norH eal ypr ovi ded cl eart es t i m onyon thi s poi nt . T he onl yt es t i m ony i ndi cat i ng t hatB ur ns pr ovi ded hi s r eas oni ng i s B urns ’ ow n, w hi ch the di s tr i ct cour t found not t o be s uppor t ed by the r ecor d. 3 A ccor di ngl y , undert he verynarr ow s t andar d w i th w hi ch w e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , w e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng thatB ur ns pr ovi ded butt he fol l ow i ng l i m i t ed, r el i abl e i nform at i on t o di s pat cherR ay : the 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 li m it ed info rm ati o n B u rns d id p rov ide to d ispa tche r R ayw as re li ab le. T h e re co rd s how s t hatB ur ns s uppl i ed di s pat cherR ayw i th hi s ful l name and cont act i nform at i on, per s onal l yobs erved the s i tuat i on thathe des cr i bed, and conve y ed s uffi ci ents peci fi ci t yr egar di ng t he van thatther e w as a veryl ow pr obabi l i tythat t he off i cer s w oul d have s t opped the w r ong vehi cl e. T hus , w e ca nnots aythe d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s fin d in g w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in 5 fi ndi ng t hatB urns di d noti nform t he di s pat cherw hyhe s us pect ed the van w as carr y i ng undocument ed al i ens , w e do notr eac h the ques t i on of w hetherH eal yhad (c o n tin u e d ...) 11 van’ s “col or , l i cens e [pl at e] num ber , [a de s cr i pt i on t hati thad] bl acke d- out w i ndow s , [and i t s ] l ocat i on, di r ect i on of tr avel , and numberof occ upant s . ” B W e tur n now t o w hetherH eal yhad r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op the van bas ed on the l i m i t ed i nform at i on, des cr i bed i n the pr evi ous par agr aph, B urns s uppl i ed t o di s pat cherR ay . T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thatt hi s l i m i t ed i nform at i on w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. B urns s t at ed thata l ar ge num berof H i s pani c i ndi vi dual s w er e tr avel i ng w es ton I - 40 i n a van w i th darkti n ted w ind o w s, an d info rm ed the d ispa tche r th at he su sp ec ted th eyw ere u n d o cu m en ted, bu t nev er told th e d ispa tche r w h yh e b eli ev ed theyw ere undocument ed. B ur ns appar ent l yform ed hi s s us pi ci ons bas ed on hi s addi t i onal obs ervat i ons di s cus s ed above , and i ndeed thes e s us pi ci ons m aygi ve r i s e t o an offi cer ’ s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on i n s uppor tof a s t op, butt he di s tr i ctcourtfound t hatt hi s i nform at i on w as notcomm uni cat ed t o di s pat cherR ay . B as ed on the 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op t he van ha d thi s i nform at i on been pr ovi ded. T hat s ai d, unders i m i l arci r cumst ance s , w hen the i nform antconvey ed the r eas ons for h e r s u s p ic io n s , w e h a v e h e ld th a t r e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n e x is te d to s to p a v e h ic le . See U ni t ed St at es v. L eos - Q uij ada, 107 F. 3d 786, 788- 89, 794 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng t hatoffi cerhad r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op a vehi cl e w hen conf i dent i al in fo rm a n t p e rso n a llyo b se rv e d th e v e h icle , p ro v id e d a d e sc rip tio n o f th e v e h icle and i t s di r ect i on, det ai l ed the bas i s forhers us pi ci on thatthe vehi cl e w as engage d i n i l l egal act i vi t y , and had pr evi ous l ygi ven r el i abl e i nform at i on t hatl ed t o the s u c c e s s f u l a p p re h e n s io n o f

in d iv id u a ls e n g a g e d in v a ri o u s c ri m in a l a c tiv ity).

12 lim ited in fo rm a tio n th a t w a s p ro v id e d to th e d isp a tch e r, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is does notpr es enta l egal bas i s t o s t op the van. A tbes t , att he t i m e H eal ys t opped t he van he had “i nchoat e s us pi ci ons and unpart i cul ar i zed hunc hes ” aboutw hether t he occ upant s of the van w er e enga ged i n i l l egal act i vi ty . See U ni t ed St at es v. Sal zano, 158 F. 3d 1107, 1111 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( not i ng that“i nchoat e s us pi ci ons and unpart i cul ar i zed hunc hes . . . do notpr ovi de r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. W ood, 106 F. 3d 942, 946 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ) . T hus , H eal y ’ s s t op o f th e v a n u n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s o ffe n d e d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.

III A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM . J u d g e M c W illia m s d is s e n ts .
E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge