Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/983/968/467464/
Timestamp: 2018-11-19 01:20:34
Document Index: 523313516

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 1291', '§ 3742', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mary E. Martinez, A/k/a Esperanza Lozada; and Clara J.araujo, Defendants-appellants, 983 F.2d 968 (10th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1992 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mary E. Martinez, A/k/a Esperanza Lozada; and Clara...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mary E. Martinez, A/k/a Esperanza Lozada; and Clara J.araujo, Defendants-appellants, 983 F.2d 968 (10th Cir. 1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 983 F.2d 968 (10th Cir. 1992)
In this consolidated appeal, Defendants Clara Araujo and Mary Martinez challenge their convictions on single counts of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Ms. Martinez also appeals her sentence. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and affirm.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must accept the district court's fact findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous. United States v. Berryhill, 880 F.2d 275, 280 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059, 110 S. Ct. 853, 107 L. Ed. 2d 846 (1990). The district court accepted the officer's description of the events, finding the officer stopped the vehicle after it came to a complete halt in the left lane of the interstate. The record supports these findings and we therefore reject Ms. Martinez's attempt to relitigate the facts.
The standard for determining if the stop of a vehicle for a misdemeanor traffic infraction is pretextual turns on whether the stop was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512, 1517 (10th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 709-10 (11th Cir. 1986)). We inquire "whether under the same circumstances a reasonable officer would have made the stop in the absence of the invalid purpose." Id. (emphasis in original). In short, if officers in the jurisdiction routinely enforce the traffic law at issue, then the stop is not pretextual even if the officer "hoped to discover contraband during the stop." Id. at 1518. Stated differently, to show pretext, "the law enforcement officer must deviate from his usual practice." United States v. Werking, 915 F.2d 1404, 1408 (10th Cir. 1990).
Because the standing issue remains " 'invariably intertwined' " with substantive Fourth Amendment privacy rights analysis, logic dictates we "determine 'whether the challenged search or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of [the] criminal defendant who seeks to exclude the evidence.' " United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 445 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 139-40, 99 S. Ct. 421, 428, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 1318, 113 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1991).
In deciding whether a search has infringed upon protected constitutional rights of a particular defendant who seeks the exclusion of the resulting evidence, we examine two primary factors: "whether the defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and whether society would recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable." Id. The burden of showing standing to challenge a search and seizure rests with the defendant. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130 n. 1, 99 S. Ct. 421, 424 n. 1, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978). Because passengers often have little or no privacy rights in a motor vehicle, we address each Defendant separately.
In Arango, we held that where a non-owner driver of a vehicle failed to present evidence he lawfully possessed a vehicle stopped for speeding, the driver had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. 912 F.2d at 444-46. Although we recognized "that the proponent of a motion to suppress need not always come forward with legal documentation establishing" lawful possession of the area searched, "the proponent must at least state that he gained possession from the owner or someone with the authority to grant possession." Id. at 445 (citing United States v. Miller, 821 F.2d 546, 548 & n. 2 (11th Cir. 1987)). Ms. Araujo has not satisfied this burden.
Mere possession of the vehicle and the keys are not sufficient to confer standing. United States v. Erwin, 875 F.2d 268, 271 (10th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Sanchez, 635 F.2d 47, 64 (2d Cir. 1980)). Nevertheless, Ms. Araujo asserts she possessed luggage in the trunk, which conferred upon her an expectation of privacy over the trunk. We disagree. At best, given the uncertainty over the ownership of the vehicle, she may have possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy over the contents of the luggage, not over the trunk where the luggage was located.
In sum, Ms. Araujo simply did not produce evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular area searched. See United States v. Obregon, 748 F.2d 1371, 1374-75 (10th Cir. 1984) (defendant driver had no reasonable expectation of privacy in rental car by virtue of his mere physical possession where rental agreement provided the car had been rented by unrelated third party and no evidence existed of any arrangement with the rental company allowing defendant lawfully to drive the car); United States v. Erickson, 732 F.2d 788, 790 (10th Cir. 1984) (defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in aircraft where he failed to demonstrate credibly he had authority from registered owner to possess, use, or fly the aircraft); United States v. Smith, 621 F.2d 483, 487-88 (2d Cir. 1980) (driver of automobile did not have standing to contest search where he was not owner and failed to establish he lawfully possessed the vehicle), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1086, 101 S. Ct. 875, 66 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1981).
In Rakas, the Supreme Court held a nonowner passenger in a motor vehicle "simply would not normally have a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the vehicle's trunk sufficient to challenge a search. 439 U.S. at 148-49, 99 S. Ct. at 433. Recently, this Circuit ruled that even where a nonowner passenger assisted in driving the car on a long-distance trip, the passenger had no standing to assert a privacy interest in the vehicle where the owner was present and defendant did not assert an interest in the marijuana and cocaine seized by police. United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1251 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 238, 239, 116 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1991).
Still, Ms. Martinez contends the fact the owner of the vehicle was not present at the scene and their extended use of the vehicle over a period of days somehow distinguishes her situation from Rakas. She likens her case to Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1980), where the Supreme Court held that a guest present in his friend's apartment had standing sufficient to object to a search of the apartment. Again, we disagree.
The mere absence of the vehicle's owner here did not automatically convey a possessory interest in the car to Ms. Martinez. Nor are we prepared to declare that society would recognize an expectation of privacy in a vehicle where neither occupant produced credible evidence showing lawful possession of the vehicle. Furthermore, we previously have held that privacy concerns involving overnight guests in another's home "simply do not apply in the context of automobile searches and seizures." Jefferson, 925 F.2d at 1251; see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 148, 99 S. Ct. at 433 (noting that "cars are not to be treated identically with houses or Apartments for Fourth Amendment purposes"). Nor does the length of the drive alter the level of privacy protection. As we noted in Jefferson, "whether [the car] is driven across town or across the country, a car does not envelop its occupants in a house-like cloak of Fourth Amendment protection." 925 F.2d at 1251.
In Guzman, we acknowledged that stopping a vehicle and detaining its occupants constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure. 864 F.2d at 1519. As such, we held an officer conducting a routine traffic stop generally may detain persons only for the period it takes to request an operator's license and vehicle registration, run necessary computer checks, and issue a citation. However, we noted further questioning is permissible when the officer has reasonable suspicion " 'of illegal transactions in drugs or of any other serious crime.' " Id. (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498-99, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1324, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion)).
Determination of the validity of a roadside detention requires that "we balance the nature of the intrusion on fourth amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests involved." Arango, 912 F.2d at 446 (citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1575, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985)). The relevant inquiry centers on whether " 'the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.' " Id. (quoting Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686, 105 S. Ct. at 1575). The police officer's actions must be justified at their inception and "reasonably related to the circumstances which justified the interference at the outset." Id. (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)).
Ms. Martinez argues she and Ms. Araujo were unreasonably detained over two hours. Citing United States v. Gonzalez, 763 F.2d 1127 (10th Cir. 1985), Ms. Martinez argues they were "seized" in violation of the Fourth Amendment, warranting suppression of all statements made and evidence discovered during the investigatory stop. In Gonzalez, we held the district court should have suppressed cocaine discovered after a police officer coerced defendant into accompanying him to the police station to conduct a search for drugs. Id. at 1132-33. The officer persuaded the defendant to follow him to headquarters by retaining his driver's license, car registration and title. Id. at 1132. In effect, we held that "defendant had no reasonable choice other than to accompany the officer no matter how polite the officer was in phrasing his request." Id.
We find the facts here analogous to United States v. Wong Ching Hing, 867 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1989). In Wong Ching Hing, the Second Circuit held that even where a traffic stop lasted longer than usual, no custodial interrogation existed where the officer questioned the operator about his destination and his possession of a large sum of cash stuffed in two suitcases. " [T]he extra time," according to the court, "was 'due primarily to the fact that the driver of the car had no registration and gave what were, to say the least, suspicious answers as to the ownership of the car.' " Id. at 756.
Nevertheless, Ms. Martinez argues the officer had no justification to detain them and was "obligated to issue a citation and let the driver and the passenger of the vehicle go." She claims the facts in the present case are indistinguishable from Guzman, where we held an officer's hunch that defendants possessed contraband was " 'perhaps a tribute to his policeman's intuition, but it [was] not sufficient to justify, ex post facto, a seizure that was not objectively reasonable.' "4 864 F.2d at 1520 (quoting United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 708 (11th Cir. 1986)). We find the facts of the present case fully distinguishable from Guzman.
Next, Ms. Martinez contends that because the officers did not issue Miranda warnings until after their arrest even though they were detained within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), all statements made during the roadside stop were the fruit of a custodial interrogation and should be excluded. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984), the Supreme Court held law enforcement personnel may make a routine traffic stop and may ask a moderate number of questions to determine the occupants' identities "and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions," id. at 439, 104 S. Ct. at 3150, without being required to advise the individuals of their Miranda rights, id. at 442, 104 S. Ct. at 3151. The reasoning behind this rule is a routine traffic stop is "presumptively temporary and brief," id. at 437, 104 S. Ct. at 3149, and the circumstances surrounding a typical traffic stop "are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police," id. at 438, 104 S. Ct. at 3149.
As in Berkemer, we find nothing in the record indicating Ms. Araujo and Ms. Martinez should have received Miranda warnings at any point prior to their arrest. Neither Ms. Araujo nor Ms. Martinez were "in custody" or physically restrained. Instead, the officers merely detained Defendants for a brief period while they attempted to ascertain whether either woman lawfully possessed the vehicle. Arrest or its equivalent is required before police must advise suspects of their Miranda rights. See Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 109 S. Ct. 205, 102 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1988); United States v. Jones, 933 F.2d 807 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2802, 115 L. Ed. 2d 975 (1991). The atmosphere surrounding the stop in question was not coercive and we see no violation of Ms. Araujo's or Ms. Martinez's Fifth Amendment rights requiring suppression of statements made at the scene.
We review the district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harmon, 918 F.2d 115, 117 (10th Cir. 1990). We cannot say the district court abused its discretion here.
The district court's decision whether to grant a downward adjustment under § 3B1.2 is a determination of fact which we will not disturb on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1404 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2033, 114 L. Ed. 2d 118 (1991). A defendant bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, entitlement to a downward adjustment. United States v. McCann, 940 F.2d 1352, 1359 (10th Cir. 1991).
Ms. Martinez has not shown that the district court's determination is clearly erroneous. She claims only that she was a courier in a transaction necessarily involving numerous other individuals. A defendant's role as a courier does not necessarily mean the individual was a minor participant. McCann, 940 F.2d at 1359. We reiterate that " [s]ection 3B1.2 turns on culpability, not courier status." Id. The record here indicates Ms. Martinez was a courier acting in concert with Ms. Araujo in an attempt to deliver over twenty kilograms of cocaine. Conduct involving such a large quantity of narcotics runs counter to the commentary accompanying § 3B1.2 which states a downward adjustment should be used "infrequently." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n. 1). "It would be appropriate, for example, ... where an individual was recruited as a courier for a single smuggling transaction involving a small amount of drugs." Id. We hold the denial of a mitigating role offense level reduction was not clearly erroneous.
Several factors in Guzman contributed to our decision to hold the detention and subsequent seizure unreasonable. Foremost, no objective circumstances existed suggesting defendants had committed any crime more serious than a seat belt violation. The officer asked for and received a proper license and registration. Id. at 1519. Rather than simply issue a warning or citation for the infraction, the officer proceeded to check the odometer of the car and confronted the occupants with an "intrusive" line of questioning. Id. Under the circumstances, we held none of the occupants' actions were sufficient to arouse reasonable suspicion. Id. at 1520. We also noted the officer "was unjustified in assuming that a laborer and his wife could not possess $5,000 without arousing suspicion sufficient to justify a seizure." Id. (emphasis omitted). In short, the officer's continued questioning was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the stop in the first instance. See id. at 1518-19; Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20, 88 S. Ct. at 1879