IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

United States of America, ) 

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3: 15-cr-00369-JO 

~ ) 

) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Raul Alvarado et al. ) 

Defendants. ) 

Jones, J. 

In March, 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Raul Alvarado ("Alvarado"), Fidel 

Villafana-Beltran ("Villafana"), and Raechel Amis with Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled 

Substances, Heroin and Methamphetamine. [# 35] Thereafter, both Alvarado and Villafana filed 

motions to suppress evidence seized during a February 12, 2015 traffic stop of a SUV Alvarado 

was driving and in which Villafana was a passenger.[# 67, 91] In their motions, Alvarado and 

Villfana request a ruling suppressing any observations of them by the police, any statements 

made by them along with any physical evidence seized at that time of the traffic stop. Based on 

the following findings of facts and conclusions oflaw, I DENY defendants' motions. 

Findings of Facts 

On the evening of February 12, 2015, Officer Nolan Borders ("Borders") of the Rainier 

Police Department (RPD) observed a male and female arguing outside the Bridgeview Deli in 

rural Columbia County, Oregon. Borders pulled off the road and watched the female walk into 

the deli and the male walk to a SUV parked nearby, get in the driver's seat, back out of the 

1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 7
parking space and drive toward Borders on Washington Way. Borders noticed that the SUV was 

parked in a marked handicap zone. The SUV turned onto an access road toward a gas station 

and Borders noted the absence of a disabled persons parking pe1mit hanging from the rearview 

minor. 

Borders followed the SUV into the gas station and at 11: 13 p.m. Borders. parked behind 

the SUV, allowing room for it to leave either by driving forward or in reverse. Borders 

approached the driver, Alvarado, who had walked to the carwash coin machine. Borders 

identified himself as a RPD officer and informed Alvarado that he had parked in a handicapped 

parking space at the deli and asked if Alvarado had a pe1mit. Alvarado claimed that he did and 

Borders asked to see it. Borders saw there were two other men in the SUV. Alvarado opened 

the front door on the passenger side where defendant Villafana sat. Alvarado looked for the 

pe1mit in the glove box while speaking Spanish with the two passengers. Borders noticed a 

police scanner in the SUV and realized the passengers were listening to the same channel used 

by Borders for police communications. 

Alvarado did not find the permit and told Border that the permit belonged to his mother. 

Borders believed he had probable cause that Alvardo had parked unlawfully because the actual 

holder of the disabled persons parking pe1mit must be in the car with Alvarado for the permit to 

be used validly. 1 Borders got Alvarado's driver's license and told him to stay with his SUV 

while Borders went back to his cruiser. 

After seeing the police scanner, Borders felt concern for his safety. The closest backup 

officer was twelve miles away, and he was outnumbered three to one. The two passengers in the 

vehicle conversed with Alvarado in a language Borders did not understand. At 11: 15 pm, he 

1 Parking in a handicapped zone without proper authorization is a Class C traffic violation. Or. Rev. Stat.§ 811.615. 

2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 7
radioed Dispatch about the police scanner and requested back up. In addition, when Borders 

looked at Alvarado's license, he recognized the name. Approximately one month prior to this 

encounter, he was asked to conduct a welfare check on a female who was allegedly assaulted by 

Alvarado. Before Borders was able to conduct the welfare check, he learned of an officer safety 

concern because Alvarado had stated that he would kill police officers if confronted by them. 

Borders also knew that Alvarado was a suspect in a federal drng conspiracy investigation. At 

11: 17 pm, he requested additional back up. At 11 :22 pm, Borders requested a computer check of 

Alvarado's driver's license. 

Initially, Dispatch was unable to locate Alvarado's name based on the Washington State 

driver's license Alvarado provided. After Border's provided additional information including 

the license plate numbers from the SUV Alvarado was driving, Dispatch responded at 11 :31 pm 

that Alvarado had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. 

Four additional back up officers arrived and at 11 :32 p.m., Borders advised Alvarado that 

he was under arrest based on the wmrnnt. While another officer placed "stop sticks" in front of 

Alvarado's car, Borders handcuffed and patted down Alvarado before formally atTesting him at 

11 :37 p.m. Following Alvarado's formal arrest, Borders read him his Miranda rights and 

searched him, finding $3 950 in cash on his person. He then placed Alvarado in the back of a 

State Trooper's car and answered questions posed by Alvarado. 

Just before midnight, Borders turned his attention to the passengers in the vehicle. He 

directed the front seat passenger, who provided Borders with a Mexican ID listing his name as 

Luis Antonio Rico Canillo, but whose true name is Fidel Villafana-Beltran, to exit the SUV . 

. Borders asked Villafana if he had any weapons and if Borders could pat him down to check for 

weapons. Villafana said he did not have any weapons but agreed to the pat down for weapons. 

3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 7
Borders did not find anything consistent with weapons in his pat down, but did find what he 

believed to be a stack of cash inside Villafana's jacket. Borders asked to look at the cash. 

Villafana consented and Borders took the cash from the jacket. He asked Villafana how much 

money it was and Villafana responded that he did not know. Borders asked ifhe could count the 

money and Villafana agreed to this. Borders counted the money, gave it to the other officers to 

recount for accuracy, and determined there was $11,000. Villafana explained the money was the 

proceeds from the sale of a car and that $8500 belonged to him and $2500 belonged to Alvarado. 

Once the officers removed the third passenger, Borders asked Alvarado ifhe could search 

the vehicle. Alvarado refused. The officers approached the car with weapons drawn, some of 

the officers had long guns. Borders asked one of the backup officers to run his narcotics 

detection K9 around the vehicle's exterior. The K9 did not alert positively to the exterior of the 

vehicle, but when Borders placed Villafana's bundle of cash on the ground, the K9 positively 

alerted to the presence of drug odor on the cash. Based on the positive alert, Borders seized the 

$11,000 as evidence of drug trafficking. 

Borders transpo1ied Alvarado to the Columbia County Jail. Villafana was not arrested 

and was allowed to leave the scene of the encounter. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. Borders had probable cause to believe that a traffic infraction had occurred. 

ORS§ 811.615(1) states that a person commits a traffic infraction ifthe person parks in 

a space reserved for people with disabilities without conspicuously displaying a disabled person 

parking permit. Borders personally observed Alvarado's SUV parked in a spot designated for 

handicapped parking. He did not see a handicapped parking permit displayed on Alvarado's 

vehicle. When he asked Alvarado ifhe had a disabled person's parking permit, Alvarado was 

4 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 4 of 7
unable to provide one. Thus, Borders's stop of Alvarado's vehicle was lawful. 

2. Borders's traffic stop of Alvarado and the passengers inside Alvarado's SUV did not 

exceed the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made. 

In Rodriguez v.United States,_ U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015), the Supreme Court 

examined the duration of police inquiries in the traffic- stop context. The Court held that a 

police stop that exceeds the time necessary to handle the mission for which the stop is made 

violates the Fourth Amendment's shield against unreasonable seizures. Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 

1616. The Court recognized that beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an 

officer's mission includes ordinary inquires incident to the traffic stop, such as "determining 

whether there are outstanding wanants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's 

registration and proof of insurance. Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1615. The comt also noted that 

officer safety interests stem from the mission of the stop. Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1616. 

Here, when Borders first encountered Alvarado, his mission was to issue a traffic citation. 

When Borders observed the police scanner and determined that he was outnumbered, he called 

for backup. The time taken by Borders to make that call and to contact Dispatch for background 

information about Alvarado was necessary to complete the mission safely. After Dispatch 

informed Borders as to Alvarado's outstanding warrant, Borders' s mission evolved to include 

arresting Alvarado on the outstanding warrant. The time required to complete the mission 

expanded with the change in the mission. Once Alvarado was anested and placed in the patrol 

car, Borders had to deal safely with the remaining passengers and the now driverless SUV. 

Borders directed Villfana to get out of the SUV. He asked Villafana ifhe could search him for 

weapons and Villafana consented. The mission was complete when Alvarado was arrested and 

placed in the officers car, the remaining passengers were removed from the SUV and the SUV 

safely secured. There was no idle time. All of Borders acts involved efficiently performing his 

5 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 5 of 7
duties. 

3. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, Villafana's consent to search was 

voluntary. 

"For the duration of a traffic stop, a police officer effectively seizes 'everyone in the 

vehicle,' the driver and all passengers." Brend/in v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255 (2007). "An 

officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the 

stop." 1\Imyland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997). An officer may search without a warrant 

and without probable cause if given voluntary consent. See Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 

218 (1972; United States v. Patayan Soriano, 361F.3d494, 501 (9'" Cir. 2004). To dete1mine 

whether consent was voluntary, comis look at the totality of the circumstances, Schneckloth, 412 

U.S. at 227. A comi should consider five non-exclusive factors in determining whether consent 

was voluntaiy, specifically (1) whether defendant was in custody; (2) whether the an-esting 

officers had their guns drawn; (3) whether lvfiranda warnings were given; ( 4) whether the 

defendant was told he had the right not to consent; and (5) whether the defendant was told that a 

search warrant could be obtained. United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103 ((9'" Cir. 2000). 

Here, Villafana was not in custody when Borders asked for consent to search. While 

Borders provided directions to Villafana as to how and where to stand as Villafana was getting 

out of the SUV, there is no evidence that Villafana was being threatened with the prospect of 

an-est. Next, while officers with weapons, including long guns, were present on the scene, there 

is no evidence that officers had weapons draw at the time Villafana was asked for and gave his 

consent. Third, no Miranda warnings were given to Villafana because he was not in custody 

when he consented to the pat down. Finally, no officer informed Villafana that he had a right not 

to consent nor was there any discussion of a search warrant. However, the absence of Miranda 

warnings and the lack of discussion regarding the right not to consent and search warrants are of 

6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 6 of 7
no import here. Villafana immediately consented when Borders asked if he could conduct a patdown. In fact, Villafana gave consent three different times in rapid succession: when Borders 

asked if could perform a pat-down for weapons; when Borders asked if he could take the money 

out ofVillfana'sjacket; and when Borders asked ifhe could count the money. Borders lawfully 

seized the bundle of money after the K9 unit positively alerted to the bundle of money. 

Based on the foregoing reasons, I DENY defendants' motions to suppress[# 67, 91] 

Dated this 1r-~day of October, 2016 

7 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

Case 3:15-cr-00369-JO Document 125 Filed 10/07/16 Page 7 of 7