2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-15-2004 

# U SA v . Ale m a n-F i gue r eo P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4506

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Ale m a n-F i gue r e o " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 76. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/76NOT PRE CEDENT IAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 03-4506

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. JOS E ALEMAN- FI GUEREO, Appellant
On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin I slands (D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr- 00016) District Judge: H onorab le Thom as K. M oore

Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 13, 2004 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, F UE NT ES and GR EE NB ER G, Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: December 15, 2004

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

SL OV ITE R, Circuit

Judge
. Appellant

Jose Aleman-Fi guereo appeal s the deci sion of t he Distr ict Court

of the Vir gin Islan ds d enyin g hi s m otio n to sup pre ss th e ev iden ce o f ap pro xim ately 1 .4 kilogr ams of heroin obtained by United States Customs Officer s in their s earch of t he safe locat ed in Aleman-Fi guereo’s cruis e ship cabin. Aleman-Fi guereo ple d guilt y t o one count of possession with intent to distribute he roin in violation of 21 U .S.C. §§ 84 1(a)(1), 841(b)(1) (A)(i) , but r eserved t he suppress ion is sue for t his appeal . We have juri sdict ion of h is ti mel yapp ealpur suantto 28 U. S. C. § § 12 91, 129 4( 3) . We wil l a ffirm. I. We need to reci te the relevant fact s more fully t han we do in other

nonprece dentia l opinio ns be caus e of th e high ly factual n ature o f A lema n-Fig uereo ’s Fo urth Am endm ent challenge . In January of 20 03, Alem an-Figue reo wa s a passeng er onbo ard the Adventure s of the Sea c ruise ship. The cruise itinerary include d stops in Puerto Rico and S t. Tho mas , as w ell as sev eral fo reign lo cation s, includ ing A ruba , Cura cao, a nd S t. Maarten, al l thr ee of which are known drug source countr ies. Jose Figueroa, who had been a cust oms inspect or for se ven years and who works out of t he United States Immigrat ion and Customs Enforc ement Office i n San Juan, Puer to Rico, learne d from the advanced crui se ship pa ssenger mani fest t hat three to four

weeks prior , Aleman-Fi guereo had trave led on the same vessel , with t he same seven-day i tinerary . Ins pector Fi gueroa also lea rned that A lema n-Fig uereo had p urch ased the tick ets for his sec ond cruise with in3

two to thr ee day s of it s depart ure. Inspect or Figuer oa and other customs i nspector s from the San Juan office t ravele d to St. Thom as to assist in the search o f the A dventures of the Se a cruise ship on January 18, 2003. Once the customs inspectors were onbo ard the vessel in t he Virgin Islands, ship sec urit

y per sonnel i nformed them that Aleman-Figuere o and his compani on acted “str ange, not

normal” as “ they

didn’t come out a lot

from the cabin.” App. at 34. Accompanied by cus toms offic ers and national guardsmen, s hip security personnel entere d A lema n-Fig uereo ’s lock ed ca bin an d ann oun ced In spec tor Fig uero a and his collea gues . In resp onse to Insp ector F iguero a’s req uests, A lema n-Fig uereo cong enially answered quest ions and per mitt ed a searc h of the cabi n. Because t he cabin sa fe was closed and lo cked , Inspe ctor F iguero a direc ted A lema n-Fig uereo to op en the safe w ith his combinati on. At fir st, Aleman-Figuere o denied using the safe or knowing the
com binatio n. A fter Ins pecto r Figu eroa in form ed him that a c losed safe n ecess arily indicated that it

was locked by

a personalcombinati on, Aleman-Fi guereo tried several times to open the safe to no avail. In spec tor Fig uero a then directe d the s ecurity personnelto find a

crew member to open the safe. Ale man-Figuereo a ssert s that a crew member unlocked the safe, whil e Inspect or Figuer oa insi sts t hat Aleman-Fi guereo opened the safe afte r his fe male com panio n gav e him a com binatio n. Th e differenc e is insi gnific ant. The safe contained a wallet , a bi rth cer tifi cate, and, si gnific antly , a pai r of spandex short s with package s of heroi n sewn into t he seams. Ale man-Figuereo was1 During the Apri l 16, 2003 s uppressi on hearing, the parties r igorously di sputed t he 1 scope of Aleman-Fi guereo consent to sear ch the cabin premises . Because t he Distr ict 2 Court deci ded the moti on on other gr ounds, i t did not make a finding a s to whether 3 Aleman-Figuere o consented to the search of his ca bin or cabin safe the rein. 4
2 Aleman-Figuereo subm itted additional papers pro se , chal lenging t he Distr ict 1 Co urt’s dec ision on g rou nds com par able to th ose artic ulate d by h is cu rren t cou nse l. 2 Alem an-F iguere o also asserts a Sixth Am endm ent ch alleng e to the perfo rman ce of his 3 pretrial c ounsel dur ing the pl ea negoti ations . As it is wellestabl ished i n this circuit that 4 ineffec tive a ssista nce of c oun sel c laim s are not ente rtain ed o n a d irect app eal, United 5 4 subsequent ly

read his right s and taken to another part of t he vesselfor furt

her questi oning. By infor mation dat ed January

27, 2003, Ale man-Figuereo was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute he roin in violation of 21 U .S.C. §§ 84 1(a)(1), 841 (b)(1 )(A )(i), an d an oth er co unt of im por tatio n of her oin in v iolat ion of 2 1 U .S.C . § 952(a). Aleman-Figuere o file d a motion t o suppress the contraband obta ined from the search. At the suppr ession he aring on Apri l 16, 2003, the Dist rict Court denie d AlemanFiguereo’ s motion on t

he grounds that the customs offi cers exec uted a routine border search . The Co urt also mad e the a lternativ e find ing tha t the officers h ad rea sona ble suspici on to sear ch Aleman-Figuer eo’s cabin and the l ocked safe t herein. 1 Aleman-Figuere o pled guilty to the f irst drug tr afficki ng count in a conditi onal plea agr eement, dated May 14, 2003, which al so permit ted him t o appeal t

he Distr ict Court’s s uppressi on ruli ng. On October 31, 2003, Aleman-Fi guereo was sent enced to t he stat utory minimum of 120 months incarceration with five years of super vised r elease
. This timely a

ppeal fol lowed. 2States v. Headley , 923 F.2d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1991), we willdismis s Aleman6 Figu ereo’s Sixth Am endm ent ch alleng e w ithout p rejudic e to his r ight to ra ise the iss ue in 7 an appropri ate col late ral pr oceeding. 8 5 II. We review the D istrict Co urt's den ial of th e mo tion to s upp ress fo r clear e rror as to th e u nd er lyin g fac tu al fin di ng s a nd ex er cis e p len ar y re vi ew of th e D ist ric t C ou rt's app licatio n of

the la w to tho se f

acts . United States v. Per ez , 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d Cir. 2002). There is no di spute t hat the search of Aleman- Figuereo’ s cabin occ urred at the “functi onal equi valent ” of an int ernati onal border . In United States v. Hy de , 37 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 1994), t

his cour t recogni zed the Unit ed State s Virgin I slands a s a longstanding custo ms b orde r. We follow the ap proa ch tak en by the Co urt of A ppea ls for th e Fifth Circuit which constr

ued the fi rst por

t where a vess el docks upon i ts ar rivalfrom a forei gn
cou ntry as the “ fun ction al eq uiv alen t” of a cu stom s bo rde r. United States v. Cardena s , 9 F.3d 1139, 1147- 1148 (5th Cir . 1993) ( citing Almeida-Sanchez v. United Stat es , 413 U. S. 266, 272 (1973) ). When Aleman-Figuer eo’s cabin was searched, the Adventure of the Sea cruis e ship was docked at St. Thomas en r oute from the forei gn nations of Curacao and St. Maart en. Therefor e, the search qua lifi es as a bor der sear ch for the purpose of t he Fou rth A men dm ent. The S uprem e Cou rt has repeatedly held that “‘sea rches m ade at the bo rder, pursuant to the l ongstandi ng right of the sover eign to protect its elf by stoppi ng and6

examining per sons and proper ty crossing into t

his count ry , are reasonable simply by virt ue of the fact

that t hey occ ur at t

he border. ’” United States v. Fl ores-Montano , U.S
. , 124 S.Ct. 1582, 1585 (2004) (quoti ng United States v. Ramsey , 431 U.S. 606, 616 (197 7)); see also United States v. Glas ser , 750 F.2d 1197, 1200 (3d Cir. 1984) (“One of the i nherent powers of a soverei gn is the power to res tri ct or r egulat e the ent ryof persons and property across t he border.”). Accordingly , customs officials, among others, have the aut

horit y t o perform routine border searches without warr ant, probable c ause, or
reas ona ble s usp icion
. See United States v. Montoy a de Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531, 538 (198 5); see also Un ited Sta tes v. M artinez -Fue rte , 428 U.S. 543, 562-64 (1976) (holding that border sear ches conduct ed at roa dway checkpoi nts, even those made primarily on basis of race , are constitutional even in absence of individu alized suspicion ). Ou r de cisio ns h ave follo we d th e Su pre me Co urt’s pre ced ent. See, e. g. , Bradley v. United States , 2 99 F. 3d 1 97, 201 -0 5 ( 3d Ci r. 200 2) (f in di ng t hat pat downbycus to ms inspect ors which ent aile d both proddi ng of exter nal geni tali a and breast s was part of routine search of air p assen ger arr iving a t U.S . airport f rom Jam aica); United States v. Ezeiruaku , 936 F.2d 136, 140-41 (3d Cir . 1991) ( holding t hat search of outbound l uggage to Germ any at U.S. airport is routine). In c ont rast, n on- rou tine b ord er se arch es re qui re re aso nab le su spic ion
. Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U .S. at 54 1; Ezeiruaku , 936 F.2d at 140. This c ategory

of search s tands
as a narr ow exception t o customs offi cial s’ broad authori ty and is r eserved for

searches7

that are highly i ntrusive and pose serious threats to the di gnity and privac y i nteres ts of t he per son bein g se arch ed. Flores- Montano , 124 S .Ct. at 15 85; Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. at 541 (holding t

hat det ention of

border cr osser s o that bowelmovements could be
mo nitored for ev idenc e of d rug sm ugg ling w as no t routine ); see also Bradley , 299 F.3d at 203-04 (“[W ]e do not foreclose the possibil ity that a patdown gone aw ry could become so intrusiv e as to b ecom e a no nrou tine sea rch req uiring a pplica tion of the rea sona ble suspicion stand ard.”). Aleman-Figuere o contends t hat the search of hi s cabin and t he safe therein was intr usive and non- routi ne because t he customs offi cers del iberat ely flew from Puert o Rico to St. Thomas to conduct t he search. Aleman-Figuere o further contends t

hat the search
wa s unla wf

ul bec ause the officers h ad ne ither the requ isite reaso nable susp icion n or his
cons ent. Ale ma n-F igu ereo ’s po sition ign ore s the we igh t of b ind ing jud icial a uth ority. Wh ether o r not a b orde r searc h is rou tine do es no t turn on the efforts o f cus toms offic ials to arrive at

a parti cular c ustoms border . Rather , it depends on the qua lit

y of t he search, i.e
. , whether it was int

rusive to such an ext ent that it genuinel y affe cted the privac y inter ests o f the per son sea rch ed. See Flores- Montano , 124 S .Ct. at 15 85; Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U .S. at 54 1; Bradley , 299 F.3d at 203-04. Neither t he Supreme Court nor t his court has addr essed whether the search of a cabin of a c ruise sh ip at a c ustom s bord er is sufficien tly intrusive to requ ire reaso nable3 We have allude d to the pub lic natu re of a room ette ab oard an inte rstate train in 1 con side ring wh ethe r a p asse nge r’s co nse nt to a se arch wa s giv en f reely. See United 2 States v . Kim , 27 F.3d 947 ( 3d Cir. 1994) . In di ctum, we suggest ed approvalof the 3 district co urt’s fin ding that the room ette w as pu blic, w here th e roo mette occu pant le ft its 4 doo r op en d esp ite its p rox imity to hea vily po pul ated area s of the tr ain. Id. at 952 n.2; see 5 also United States v. Whit ehead , 849 F.2d 849, 854-55 (4th Cir. 1988) (holdi ng that 6 passeng ers have red uced ex pectation of p rivacy in railway sleeping com partmen ts). 7 8 susp icion. O ther co urts pre sented with the issu e hav e dec lined to adop t a gen erally applicable rule, instead relying on the facts of the particular case to d ecide w hether there was reasonabl e suspic ion, t hereby obviating the need t o address t he issue of routine search vel non . See, e. g. , Un ited Sta tes v. S mith , 273 F.3d 629, 634 (5th Cir . 2001) (holdi ng customs offi cial s had reas onable sus picion be cause occupant s of cabin fit drug
smu ggler p rofiles) ; Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 298 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1320 n.2 ( S.D. Fla. 200 4) (d enyin g m otio n to sup pre ss af ter f ind ing reas ona ble s usp icion ). But see United States v. Alfonso , 759 F.2d 728, 738 (9th Cir . 1985) ( holding r easonable suspici on requir ed when search i nvolved cabi n on large s hipping ves sel t hat constitut ed living quarters of o ccupan t). 3 Because the customs officials here clearly possessed reasonable suspicion, t he case before us i s not the occasi on to announce a gene ral r ule appl icabl e to the search of a cruise ship cab in. Thus, w e need n ot address w hether the sea rch of A leman-F iguereo’s cabin was a routine or non- routi ne border s earch. If rout ine, the search would have been lawful without any

showing of reas onable sus picion by customs offi cers or

consent by Aleman-Figuere o. If non- routi ne, the search would a lso be l awful, as t he tota lit y of t he9

circumst ances in t

his cas e creat ed a reasona ble suspi cion that Aleman-Figue reo was engaged in nar cotic s smuggli ng thereby just ify ing the of

ficer s’ search of his ca

bin and the cabin saf e. Under the rea sonable s uspici on standar d, cust oms offici als must have a “pa rticu lariz ed a nd o bjec tive b asis” to su spe ct leg al w ron gdo ing
. United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (internal quotati on and citation omitted). We m ust
rev iew the to tality of

the c ircu ms tanc es o f ea ch c ase . Id. at 274. It i s not suff icie nt under this standar d that t

he inspectors can ar

ticul ate re asons why t

hey s earched AlemanFiguereo’ s cabin i f those r easons ar e not indi cati ve of behavior in which few innocent peo ple e nga ge. See Karnes v. Skrut ski , 62 F.3d 4 85, 493 (3 d Cir. 199 5). “[T]he factors togethe r must ser

ve to el iminat e a subst antia l portion of innoc ent traveler s before t he requir ement of reas onable sus picion would be sati sfied. ” Id. In thi s case, customs i nspector s uncovered numerous factor s prior to approac hing Alem an-F iguere o’s ca bin tha t raised th e susp icion th at Ale man -Figu ereo w as inv olved in drug smuggli ng. Fir st, Aleman-Figuere o took a crui se bound for se veral known drug source count

ries . Second, he had traveled on the very same cruis e with the same exact itinerary only three to four weeks pri or. Thi rd, Aleman- Figuereo pur chased his passage on the second voyage only a few days prior t o departur e. Last ly , crui se ship pe rsonnel observed t

hat Aleman-Fi guereo and hi s companion bare ly left their cabin. Although each factor standing alone could be consistent with innocent behavior, all of t hese factors,10

taken as a

whole, suppor

t the Dis tri ct Court’ s findi ng that t he customs i nspector s had reasonabl e suspic ion to s earch the content s of Aleman-Figuer eo’s cr uise ship cabin for contra band . Furth ermo re, the S upre me C ourt h as ack now ledge d that re ason able suspici on analy sis per

mits “off icers to draw on their own experienc e and speci aliz ed training to make i nferences f rom and deducti ons about t he cumulative informat ive avail able t o them that

might wellelude an unt rained pe rson. ” Arvizu , 534 U.S. at 273 (internal citations and qu otations om itted). Hence, Insp ector Figue roa’s seven years experie nce as a customs inspect or in Puerto Rico and hi s expert ise wit h contraband
smu ggling furthe r serve to sub stantiate the D istrict Co urt’s fin ding of rea sona ble suspici on. Becau se there w as reasona ble suspicion, w e need n ot consider A leman-F iguereo’s argument that he di d not consent to the s earch of t

he cabin gener ally , or t o the loc ked cabin safe in particu lar. Ou r determ ination that the custo ms o ffice rs had reaso nable suspici on to sear ch Aleman-Figuer eo’s cabin and the saf e there in assures that

the search was lawful under t

he Fourth Amendment and that the Dist rict Court properly

denied the motion to su ppress the co ntraband u ncove red during the search o f Alem an-Figue reo’s cabin. III. For the for egoing rea sons, we wil l affi rm the judgment of convict ion.