Opinion ID: 1448445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable certainty of crossing

Text: We assess the existence of reasonable certainty of a border crossing by examining the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed[from the border] as well as the manner and extent of surveillance. Alexander, 362 F.2d at 382. These circumstances must be such as to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in or on the vehicle at the time of search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United States. Id. The issue is not ... whether the vessel [or vehicle] actually crossed into the United States territory, but whether the searching ... officers were reasonably certain that it did. Tilton, 534 F.2d at 1366. Thus, an agent or officer need not have observed the crossing. United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 950(9th Cir.2004); Dobson, 781 F.2d at 1376; United States v. Stanley, 545 F.2d 661, 666 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1976). As a corollary, while continuity of surveillance over the subject of the search is a factor in determining identity, Alfonso, 759 F.2d at 735(citing Caicedo-Guarnizo, 723 F.2d at 1422), it is not required, see Potter, 552 F.2d at 907; United States v. Driscoll, 632 F.2d 737, 739 (9th Cir.1980); Leeks v. United States, 356 F.2d 470, 471 (9th Cir.1966). Reasonable certainty is a higher standard than that of probable cause, [but] it does not require knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. Corral-Villavicencio, 753 F.2d at 788(citing Kessler, 497 F.2d at 279). Rather, the totality of the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information [must] be sufficient in the light of their experience to warrant a firm belief that a border crossing has occurred. Tilton, 534 F.2d at 1366-67 (emphasis added); see also Potter, 552 F.2d at 907 (reaffirming that absolute certainty is not required). Application of the extended border search doctrine may be defeated when conditions ... have become so vulnerable to change after a border crossing as to rebut any reasonable certainty that contraband later found was aboard a carrier at entry. Alfonso, 759 F.2d at 736. In United States v. Petersen, 473 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.1973), for example, officers lost sight of a vehicle for ten minutes after it crossed the border, during which time the driver picked up two passengers. It therefore was not reasonably certain that the contraband ultimately recovered was in the vehicle when it crossed the border. Id. at 876. In United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 724 (9th Cir.1975), the vehicle in question made several stops at the border crossing, picking up and discharging passengers, one of whom was seen retrieving a package hidden near a palm tree. It therefore was most reasonable to infer that contraband found in the vehicle had been retrieved from near the tree. Id. at 726. Similarly, in United States v. Perez, 644 F.2d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir.1981), customs agents did not see the vehicle in question until it was in the middle of a busy town three miles north of the border. Accordingly, there could have been no reasonable certainty that any contraband found in the vehicle had crossed the border. Id. In the case before us, several factors appear to support a finding of reasonable certainty. First, the outlet of the A-7 Valley, from which Battaglini first observed Appellants' vehicle, lies only one and a half miles from the Mexican border. Second, Battaglini testified that the large dunes flanking the valley between its origin in Mexico and its terminus in the United States are impassable to all but specially modified vehicles, and that Appellants' vehicle did not appear to be specially equipped or modified. Third, Battaglini stressed that the absence of any reports of vehicle traffic in the A-7 by roving border patrol vehicles earlier in the day eliminated the possibility that Appellants' vehicle merely had lingered in the area from the previous day. Finally, he observed that the vehicle's unusual speed and unwavering trajectory suggested the absence of any recreational purpose. In the district court, the defense offered the testimony of Robert Davidson, an off-road vehicle enthusiast who visits the Imperial Sand Dunes several times a year. Davidson stated that he had been able to traverse the A-7 dunes in unmodified vehicles, but he admitted that his vehicle was fitted with larger-than-normal tires. Davidson also indicated the existence of several alternate routes at the northern end of the A-7 Valley, the availability of which might negate the inference that a vehicle emerging from the valley at the Buttercup Campground necessarily had traveled north from the valley's Mexican flank. These routes, however, either required traversal of the sand dunes, were under relayed surveillance, or had long been closed to traffic by physical barriers  all facts known to Battaglini on the day in question. In rebuttal testimony, Battaglini maintained that the dunes were impassable to ordinary four-wheel-drive vehicles, and the district court made an express factual finding that Battaglini's testimony was much more believable and... based on much more experience than [that of] Mr. Davidson, who goes out [to the Imperial Dunes] four times a year. The district court noted that Battaglini was out there every single day and has seen hundreds ... [and] probably thousands of vehicles. The evidence offered in the district court was sufficient to establish a reasonable certainty that a border crossing had occurred, such that any contraband found in Appellants' vehicle confidently could be considered to have crossed the border. That Battaglini did not see the actual crossing or maintain continuous surveillance over the vehicle from the time of suspected crossing is not determinative under our case law. Given the unique topographical and geographic features of the area in question, Battaglini's vantage point ... enabled him to be reasonably certain that the [vehicle] he saw came from Mexican [territory]. Bennett, 363 F.3d at 950-51. Appellants have identified no defect[s] of certainty that would defeat such a finding, and conditions had not become so vulnerable to change after [the] border crossing as to rebut the inferences reasonably drawn from Battaglini's observations. Cf. Alfonso, 759 F.2d at 736. The vehicle was spotted not in a busy town several miles from the border, cf. Perez, 644 F.2d at 1302, but in an empty desert less than two miles from the border and accessible only through a valley originating in Mexico and forming a unitary path to the observation point at which Battaglini was stationed. There is no reason to suspect that additional passengers or contraband were retrieved from this desolate, sand-swept area. Cf. Anderson, 509 F.2d at 726. Thus, irrespective of whether Battaglini could have been absolutely certain that the vehicle had crossed the border, as he claims, the record supports a finding of reasonable certainty that a border crossing had occurred.