Source: http://openjurist.org/155/f3d/1213
Timestamp: 2016-05-01 06:37:03
Document Index: 129193495

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4242', '§ 846', '§ 2', '§ 952', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 952', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 4241', '§ 4241', '§ 4241', '§ 4247', '§ 4241']

155 F3d 1213 United States v. Vazquez-Pulido | OpenJurist
155 F. 3d 1213 - United States v. Vazquez-Pulido HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series155 F.3d
155 F3d 1213 United States v. Vazquez-Pulido 155 F.3d 1213
98 CJ C.A.R. 4768
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jose VAZQUEZ-PULIDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Mr. Vazquez-Pulido argues the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence resulting from his allegedly unlawful arrest.4 He maintains his warrantless arrest was unlawful because it was not supported by probable cause. When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and accept the court's findings of fact unless they are "clearly erroneous." United States v. Anderson, 981 F.2d 1560, 1566 (10th Cir.1992). " 'The ultimate determination of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is, however, a conclusion of law that we review de novo.' " Id. (quoting United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 672 (10th Cir.1989)).
To be lawful, a warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause to arrest. Id. "Probable cause to arrest exists when an officer has learned of facts and circumstances through reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested." United States v. Guerrero-Hernandez, 95 F.3d 983, 986 (10th Cir.1996). In the probable cause determination, we look at the totality of the circumstances of each particular case. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1388 (10th Cir.1981). Probable cause to arrest does not require facts sufficient to establish guilt, but does require more than mere suspicion. Hansen, 652 F.2d at 1388.
Mr. Vazquez-Pulido first claims the district court's finding that the Customs agents knew the car containing the drugs was registered in his name when they arrested him is clearly erroneous. "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Exxon Corp. v. Gann, 21 F.3d 1002, 1005 (10th Cir.1994) (quotation marks and citation omitted). According to our review of the record, the district court's finding was confirmed, in part, by Javier Vazquez-Pulido's statement that the car belonged to his brother and a friend,5 and the immigration information indicating Mr. Vazquez-Pulido and Javier Vazquez-Pulido were brothers. Based on this evidence, we conclude the district court's finding is not clearly erroneous.
Mr. Vazquez-Pulido next contends his relationship to his brother, and his arrival at the Port of Entry shortly after his brother's arrest, are insufficient facts to establish probable cause to arrest him. We agree "mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause." Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979) (ruling no probable cause existed to search tavern patron without facts connecting him to illegal activity); see also Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) (observing no probable cause existed to detain defendant who spoke to known narcotics addicts over a period of eight hours, without independent evidence of criminal activity). Nor is nearness to the place of the arrest of a co-conspirator or to the place of illegal activity sufficient to establish probable cause. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948) (ruling no probable cause existed to arrest defendant who merely was present during an illegal transaction that was not visibly criminal); Anderson, 981 F.2d at 1566 (holding no probable cause existed to arrest defendant who visited a house suspected to contain drugs, and walked by the place of arrest of alleged co-conspirators, without additional evidence of criminal activity).
However, where there are facts in addition to one's association with someone engaged in criminal activity, as in this case, we must consider whether the "totality of the circumstances" known at the time of the arrest established probable cause. See United States v. Hillison, 733 F.2d 692, 697 (9th Cir.1984) ("In order to find probable cause based on association with persons engaging in criminal activity, some additional circumstances from which it is reasonable to infer participation in criminal enterprise must be shown."); see also United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693, 698-99 (5th Cir.1992) (ruling probable cause existed where defendant was not only seen in the company of drug suspects, he was seen meeting suspects while they engaged in a drug conspiracy, and his behavior was consistent with the inference he was part of the conspiracy), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 944, 113 S.Ct. 388, 121 L.Ed.2d 296 (1992).
We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Janusz, 135 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir.1998). However, when the issue on appeal is a claim that the district court erred in interpreting the law, we review the district court's interpretation de novo. Kelley v. United States, 69 F.3d 1503, 1506 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1166, 116 S.Ct. 1566, 134 L.Ed.2d 665 (1996).
We are unwilling to adopt a per se rule making all test results arising from pretrial competency evaluations inadmissible at trial. We first note the statutory scheme does not forbid the use of competency tests at trial.7 Second, psychiatric or psychological tests used to determine competency may be relevant to the question of a defendant's mental capacity to commit a crime. Indeed, expert witnesses may use identical testing procedures for evaluating both the defendant's mental competency to stand trial and his mental capacity to commit the crime at issue. See United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534, 537 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 2859, 56 L.Ed.2d 793 (1978). We see no reason why the difference in standards for determining mental competency and mental capacity8 requires a rule making the test results of competency determinations per se inadmissible at trial.
We think the better approach to determining whether test results from competency determinations should be admissible at trial is to evaluate the evidence on a case-by-case basis for relevance, prejudice or confusion of the issues. See Fed.R.Evid. 402, 403. This approach also is consistent with our prior case law permitting testimony at trial as to evidence obtained during a competency evaluation so long as the issues are not confused. United States v. Collins, 491 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir.1974) (observing that competent evidence adduced during a competency hearing can be presented at trial so long as such evidence does not "becloud" the issue (insanity) the jury is to decide),9 cert. denied, 419 U.S. 857, 95 S.Ct. 104, 42 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).
We also do not find compelling that, as Mr. Vazquez-Pulido suggests, competency tests should be inadmissible at trial since the tests would not be available to the parties but for the competency evaluation. As we have already recognized, identical testing procedures may be used by experts to evaluate both the defendant's mental competency to stand trial and his mental capacity to commit a crime. Consequently, the tests used to determine competency may be available to the parties regardless of the compelled competency evaluation. Furthermore, the government can compel the defendant to undergo psychiatric or psychological examination when the defendant raises the issue of insanity. 18 U.S.C. § 4242(a). Information from that examination may be used against the defendant with respect to his mental condition even though the psychological or psychiatric examination is compelled. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.2(c). We therefore do not find this argument persuasive enough to justify a per se rule making all test results from pretrial competency examinations inadmissible.
Mr. Vazquez-Pulido was charged with: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
Mr. Vazquez-Pulido further contends his brother's statement was unreliable hearsay which could not provide a sufficient basis for probable cause. Even if true, the finding of probable cause to support an arrest may be based on a co-defendant's hearsay statement, in whole or part. Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147, 1155 (10th Cir.1997) (noting the probable cause determination is made "under a 'practical, nontechnical' totality of the circumstances test" (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 230-32, 103 S.Ct. 2317)). Moreover, the agents could have considered the brother's statement partly corroborated by Mr. Vazquez-Pulido's appearance at the border shortly after his brother. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 241, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (recognizing the value of corroborating details to an informant's tip in evaluating its veracity)
The statutory scheme provides detailed pre-trial procedures for determinating whether a defendant is competent to stand trial. 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Any of the parties, or the court sua sponte, may motion for a hearing to determine if the defendant is mentally competent. Id. § 4241(a). If the court grants the motion, it may order a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant and require a report be filed by the examiner. Id. § 4241(b). The report must include all tests employed, and their results. Id. § 4247(c)(2), (A)(4)(A). The court then determines if the defendant is competent to stand trial, i.e., is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or is able to assist in his defense. Id. § 4241(a)
The test for a diminished capacity defense, like that raised by Mr. Vazquez-Pulido, is whether the defendant had the mental capacity to form the specific intent to commit the crime at issue. United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676, 678 (9th Cir.1988)