N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PERLA YESENIA PER

EZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50263

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-03105-H-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

8, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Pe rla Ye se nia Pe re z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r m o tion to suppre ss the c oc a i ne U.S. B orde r Pa trol a ge nts se iz e d from he r ve h ic le following a tra ffic stop. Pe re z c onte n ds tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d whe n

it c onc lude d tha

t the 

# F IL ED MAY15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a ge nts suffic ie ntly de m onstra

te d the y ha d a re a sona ble suspic ion to initia

te a tra ffic stop of Pe re z ’ s ve h i c le . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . B orde r Pa trol a ge nts m ay c onduc t “b rie f inve stiga

t ory stops” without viola ting theFourth Am e ndm e nt “ if the offic e r’ s a c tion is supporte d by re a sona ble suspic ion to be lie v e tha

t c rim ina l a c tivity

m ay be a foot.” Unite d State

s v . Arv izu , 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d ). “ R e a s ona b le suspic ion is de fine d a s ‘ a

pa rtic ula riz e d and obje c tive ba sis for suspe c ting the pa rtic u la r pe rson stoppe d of c rim ina l a c tivity .’ ” Unite d State s v . C otte rman , 709 F.3d 952, 968 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Unite d

State s v . C orte z , 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981)). W

he n re v ie wing whe the r the a ge nts sa tisfie d this thre shold, we vie w the “ tota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s” surrounding the ve hic le stop. Id. at 970. He re , the B orde r Pa trol a ge nts ha d a re a sona ble suspic ion to stop Pere z ’ s ve hic le . B e fore the stop, two se ts of B o rde r Pa trol a ge nts— e a c h in a m arke d B orde r Pa trol ve hic le

— inde pe n de ntly obse rve d Pe re z ’ s ve hic l e a bruptly de c re a se spe e d in re sponse to c o m ing into c onta c t with thea ge nts’ ve hic l e s. As a ge nts tra ile d Pe re z ’ s ve h ic le , she ta ilga te d the c a r in front of he r and ha d troubleke e ping he r ve hic le within its traffic la ne . At this tim

e , Pe re z wa s driving northbound on 2the I-15, whic h a ge nt s de sc ribe d a s a known sm

u ggling route , a

pproxim ate ly

46 m ile s north of the U.S./M e xic o borde r. Se e Unite d State s v . Valde s-Ve ga , 738 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (“ The loc ation of the stop, e ve n though 70
m ile s north of the borde r, wa s signific ant be c a use it wa s the northe rnm ost (tha t is, the l a st) c he c kpoint on [Interstate 15] .” ). The a ge nts te stifie d at the suppre ssion he aring tha

t, whileit is not unusua

l for m otorists to slow down whe n the y e nc ounte r a

m arke d la

w e nforc e m e nt ve hic le , the sudde n de c re a se in spe e d of Pe re z ’ s ve hic le wa s a

bnorm a l and a

ppe are d to be an

atte m pt to e va de c onta c t with the a ge nts. Se e Unite d State s v . Brignoni-Ponc e , 422 U.S. 873, 885 (1975) (The

“ drive r’ s be hav i or . . . [suc h ] a s e rra tic driving or obvious a tte m p ts to e va de offic e rs c an support re a s ona ble suspic ion.” ). The a ge nt s subse q

ue nt ly c onduc te d a

re c ords c he c k of the ve hic le ’ s lic e nse plat e num be r and its re giste re d owne r. The re p ort re ve a le d tha t the re giste re d owne r of the ve hic l e , a

fe m a le late r ide ntifie d a s Pe re z , ha d pre viously be e n arre ste d in 2000 for alie n sm u ggling a nd wa s possibly

involve d in a

smugglingre late d se izure in 2005. The re port a lso indic ate d tha t during a re c e nt borde r c rossing, oneof the ve hic le ’ s pa sse nge rs ha d a borde r patrol “ lookout for inform at iona l purpose s” (known a s “ TEC S a le rt” ) issue d. C ontra ry to Pe re z ’ s c onte ntion, this inform

ation is re le va

nt a nd highly probative to the re a sona

b le 3suspic ion c a lc ulus. Se e Burre l l v . Mc Ilroy , 464 F.3d 853, 858 n.3 (9th C i r. 2006) (“ Although a

prior c rim i na l history

c annot a lone e sta

blish re a sona

ble suspic ion . . . , it is pe rm issibleto c onside r suc h a fa c t a s pa rt of the tota l c a lc u l us of inform ation in th[a t] de te rm ination[] .” ). W e c onc lude tha

t the s e fa c ts, whe n “ filte re d through the le ns of the a ge nts’ tra ining a nd e xpe rie nc e ” in sm

uggling interdic tion, ga

ve the a ge nts a

re a sona ble suspic ion suffic ie nt to c o nduc t a n inve stiga

tory tra ffic stop. Valde

s-Ve ga , 738 F.3d at 1079. AFFIRM E D.

4