## 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- 36 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
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

v. * St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. Jo rg e Zam or a-Lo pe z, al so * kn own as J or ge Lui s Zam or a, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: May 18 , 20 12 Fi le d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BYE and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

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

.

Jo rg e Zam or a-Lo pe z co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0

gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re con ta in in g m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(A) an d 84 6. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce d hi m to 10 8 m on th s 1

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

.im

pr is on m en t. Zam or a-Lo pe z ap p e a l s t h e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s ev id en ce o bt ai ne d a s a r es ul t o f a warra nt le ss tra ffi c st op . W e aff irm.

I. BACKGRO UND
A. Fac ts
In Feb ru ary 20 11
, a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t pr ov id ed S p eci al Age nt Mi ch ael
Mi tt an of th e Io wa Div is io n of Narco ti cs Enfo rcem en t wit h in fo rm at io n le ad in g to th e

arre st of a m et ha m

ph et am in e su pp li er. The su pp li er ag reed to co op erat e wit h Age nt Mi tt an

.

The su pp li er in fo rm ed Age nt Mi tt an th at he ha d pu rch as ed m et ha m ph et am in e fro m a m an th e su pp li er kn ew as “ Nem o” (act ua ll y th e Sp an is h ni ck na m e “ Mem o” )

ev ery th ree to fiv e da y s fo r ap pr ox im at el y th r e e y ears

. The se tra ns act io ns us ua ll y fo ll owe d a s p e c i f

i c p at te rn

. The su pp li er or Mem o wou ld in it ia te a m eet in g wit h a cel l ph on e cal l. The su pp li er wou ld dr iv e to th e in te rs ect io n of So ut h 37 th St reet an d Q St reet in Om ah a, Neb ras ka
, an d wait fo r Mem o. Sh or tl y t h e r e a f te r, a ve hi cl e ( s o meti m es a si lv er sp or t ut il it y ve hi cl e (SUV)) wou ld pu ll be hi nd th e su pp li er’s

ve hi cl e. Mem o wou ld ex it fro m th e pa s se ng er si de of th is ve hi cl e an d ge t in to th e

su pp li er’s ve hi cl e. Bo th ve hi cl es wou ld th en dr iv e away, in di ffer en t di rect io ns

. The

su pp li er an d Mem o wou ld co m pl et e th e d r u g t r a ns act io n whi le th e su pp li er dr ov e

aro un d a ne arb y res id en ti al ne ig hb or ho od

. The su pp li er would th en dr iv e Mem o ba ck

to th ei r m eet in g po in t area , an d Mem o wou ld ei th er be pi ck ed up by th e ot he r ve hi cl e,

or wou ld le av e on fo ot

. The su pp li er kn ew no th in g abo ut th e in di vi du al who dr ov e Mem o to an d fro m th es e tra ns act i on s, or ev en if th e dr iv er were th e sa m e pe rs on

ev ery ti m e.

A g e n t M i t ta n de ci de d to se t up a co nt ro ll ed dr ug tra ns act io n be twee n th e

su pp li er an d Mem o fo r Feb ru ary 25
, 20 11

. Age nt Mi tt an or ga ni zed a m eet in g to pl an th e op erat io n wit h t h e s u p pl ie r, Dou gl as Co un ty (Neb ras ka ) Dep ut y Sh eri ff Ja so n Mas s, an d ot he r la w en fo rcem en t pe rs on ne l. Dur in g th is m eet in g, Mem o twi ce cal le d

-2

-t h e s u p p li er to se t up a de al
, an d th e su pp li er ag reed

. Offi cers es ta bl is he d

su rv ei ll an ce n ear t he de si gn at ed po in t, an d th e su pp li er wait ed at th e m eet in g p oi nt

as us ua l. A s i l v e r Je ep Ch ero ke e pu ll ed be hi nd th e su pp li er’s ve hi cl e, an d Dep ut y Mas s ob se rv ed a m an m at ch in g M em o’s de sc rip ti on ex it th e pa ss en ge r si de of th e Je ep an d en te r th e pa ss en ge r’s si de of th e su pp li er’s ve hi cl e. The two ve hi cl es dr ov e
away se pa rat el y . Depu ty Mass fol lo wed th e Je ep in hi s u nm ark ed ve hi cl e.

Afte r fo ll owi ng th e Je ep fo r a few bl oc ks
, Dep ut y Mas s de ci de d to s t o p t he

ve hi cl e an d arre st th e dr iv er. A m ark ed K-9 sh eri ff’s ve hi cl e si gn al ed fo r th e Je ep to
st op , an d de pu ti es ap pr oa ch ed th e ve hi cl e. The de pu ti es or de r e d th e dr iv er, la te r id en ti fie d as Zam or a-Lo pe z, to ex it th e ve hi cl e. The de pu ti es in fo rm ed Zam or aLop ez he was un de r arre st an d pl aced hi m in ha nd cu ffs

. W he n hi s arm s were pl aced be hi nd hi s ba ck
, Za mo r a

- Lo pe z’s co at po ck et cam e op en , rev eal in g wha t Dep ut y Mas s be li ev ed to be a la rg e ba gg ie co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e. The de pu ti es

se iz ed th e b ag gi e.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry A g ran d jury in di ct ed Zam or a-Lo pe z fo r co ns pi rin g to di st rib u t e

m et ha m ph et am in e an d fo r an im m ig rat io n vi ol at io n. Zam or a-Lo pe z m ov ed t o

su pp res s th e ev id en ce un co ve red as a res ul t of th e tra ffi c st op

. Afte r a he ari ng , t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d th e m ot io n bec au se “ [t]he re was pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e si lv er Je ep Ch ero ke e an d it s dr iv er ha d recen tl y be en in vo lv ed in th e tra ffi ck in g of ap pr ox im at el y on e-q ua rte r po un d of m et h a mp h e ta m in e.” Zam or a-Lo pe z pl ed

gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, pr es erv in g hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s s up pr es si on ord er. Zam or a-Lo pe z ap pe al s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N
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 qu es ti on s of la w de no vo an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Payne, 53 4 F.3 d 94 8, 95 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e wil l affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t “ un le ss

-3

-t h e d en ia l of th e m ot io n ‘is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d on an

er r o n e o u s i nt erp ret at io n of th e la w, or , ba se d on th e en ti re reco rd
, it is cl ear th at a

m is ta ke was m ad e.’” Id

. at 95 1 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. St ach owi ak
, 52 1 F.3 d 85 2,
85 4 (8 th Cir . 20 08 )).

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on pr ot ect s in di vi du al s

a g a in st un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es by th e go ve rn m en t. See U.S. Co n s t

.
am en d. IV. Su bjec t to a few na rro w ex cep ti on s, a warra nt l e s s s e a rch or se iz ur e vi ol at es th e Fo ur t h A men d men t. See Katz v. Uni te d St at es , 38 9 U.S. 34 7, 35 7 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. “ [W] he re a po li ce of fic er ob se rv es un us ua l co nd uc t whi ch le ad s hi m

reas on ab ly to co nc lu de in li gh t of hi s ex pe rie nc e th at cri m in al act iv it y m ay be afo ot , th e of fic er m ay br ie fly st op th e su sp ic io us pe rs on an d m ak e reas on ab le i n q u i r i es ai m ed at co nf

irming or di sp el li ng hi s su sp ic io ns .” Mi nn es ot a v. Dick ers on , 50 8 U.S.
36 6, 37 2- 73 (1 99 3) (q uo ti ng Terry v. Ohi o, 39 2 U.S

. 1
, 30 (1 96 8) ) (in te rn al m ark s

om it te d)

. W he th er su ch su sp ic io ns are reas on ab le is as se ss ed fro m th e po in t of vi ew

2
of tra in ed la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers ba se d on th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces kn own
to th e of fic ers at th e rel ev an t tim e. See Uni te d Stat es v. Stewar t, 63 1 F.3 d 45 3, 45 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). If reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is ts , of fic ers m ay br ie fly de ta in a ve hi cl e

an d it s oc cu pa nt s to co nd uc t a reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 26 9 F.3 d 91 9, 92 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (co nf irming th at an in ve st ig at or y tra ffi c s t o p is

“ go ve rn ed by the pri nc ip le s o f Terry v. Ohi o” ).

Zam or a-Lo pe z arg ue s th e de pu ti es la c k e d reas on ab le su sp ic io n th at th e

un kn own dr iv er of th e Je ep was in vo lv ed in Mem o’s na rco ti cs tra ffi ck in g op erat io ns

. Thi s arg um en t rel ie s on a to o- na rro w co nc ep ti on of reas on ab le su sp ic io n an d fai ls to

On ap pe al
, Zam or a-Lo pe z o n ly arg ue s th e de pu ti es la ck ed reas on ab le 2

su sp ic io n to co nd uc t an in ve st ig at or y st op

. W e do no t co ns id er whe th er ot he r as pe ct s of t he st op im

pl ic at e co ns ti tu ti on al co nc ern s. See Uni te d St at es v. Kirk
, 52 8 F.3 d 11 02
, 11 04 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng t h e c o ur t of ap pe al s wil l no t co ns id er

un de ve lo pe d i ss ue s p erfu nc to ril y rai se d i n t he ap pe ll at e b rie f).

-4

-co ns id er th e to ta li ty of th e in fo rma t i o n a v ai la bl e to th e de pu ti es

. See St ewart , 63 1

F.3 d at 45 7. The su pp li er earl ie r de sc rib ed to la w en fo rcem en t a ve ry sp eci fic pa tt ern of lo ng -s ta nd in g co nd uc t th at ne arl y al way s in vo lv ed th ree pe op le —t he su p p l ie r, Mem o, an d a n un kn own dri ve r. Mem o a nd hi s d riv er s om et im es arri ve d i n a si lv er SUV. Mem o’s dr iv er f

r eq ue nt ly st ay ed in th e area to pi ck up Mem o fo ll owi ng th e dr ug tra ns act io n. The de pu ti es ’ su rv ei ll an ce ob se rv at io ns du rin g th e co nt ro ll ed bu y

co nf irmed th e su pp li er’s accou nt in vi rtu al ly ev ery de ta il

. Cf. Illi no is v. Gates
, 46 2
U.S. 21 3, 24 1- 46 (1 98 3) (co nc lu di ng pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d to is su e a se arch warra nt whe re an an on y m ou s in fo rm an t’s ti p was co rro bo rat ed by la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers ’
in de pe nd en t i nv es ti ga ti on s)

.

The de pu ti es be li ev ed M e mo w a s an ex pe rie nc ed an d hi gh -v ol um e dr ug
tr a f f i c ke r. Su ch an in di vi du al m ig ht be ex pe ct ed to rel y on tru st ed co nf ed erat es to dr iv e hi m to an d fro m hi s dr ug tra ns act io ns

. W hi le Mem o m ig ht ha ve us ed un kn own

an d in no c e n t dr iv ers , it was reas on ab le fo r th e de pu ti es to su sp ect th e un id en ti fie d dr iv er was kn owi ng ly in vo lv ed in Mem o’s dr ug tra ffi ck in g act iv it ie s. Thu s, Zam or aLo p e z ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s were no t vi ol at ed
, an d th e di st ric t co u r t ’s ad m is si on of t he ev id en ce re su lt in g fr om th e tr affi c st op was p ro pe r.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm.

__

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

-5

-