Opinion ID: 167519
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hidden Com partm ent

Text: The first and most significant factor invoked by the government and credited by the district court is the evidence of a hidden compartment in the back of the van driven by M s. Concepcion-Ledesma. This Court has repeatedly held that “evidence of a hidden compartment can contribute to probable cause to search.” United States v. M ercado, 307 F.3d 1226, 1230 (10th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Vasquez-C astillo, 258 F.3d 1207, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001); United States Anderson, 114 F.3d 1059, 1066 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Nicholson, 17 F.3d 1294, 1297–98 (10th Cir. 1994). In United States v. Jurado-Vallejo, 380 F.3d 1235, 1236 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Jurado-Vallejo I”), a Kansas trooper traveling on an interstate highway approached a Ford Expedition from the rear and noticed “modifications to the vehicle’s bed and underbody that suggested the presence of a hidden compartment.” Specifically, the trooper noticed a “lift” low ering the vehicle’s underbody three inches from its bed, squared off edges on the vehicle’s bed suggesting a modification from the factory model, and a suspicious seam that had been bonded and coated. Id. at 1236–37. W e determined that “[w]hether - 19 - probable cause to search a vehicle can be based on evidence of a hidden compartment depends on two factors: (1) the probative value of the evidence— that is, the likelihood that there really is a hidden compartment; and (2) the likelihood that a vehicle with a hidden compartment would, in the circumstances, be secreting contraband.” Id. at 1238. The second factor, we held, was “not a concern” because “[i]f the vehicle had a hidden compartment, it was highly likely to contain contraband.” Id. Indeed, we found it “hard to conceive of a legitimate use for a large hidden storage compartment in any vehicle, let alone one with the cargo space of a Ford Expedition.” Id. at 1238–39. The first factor, however, was difficult to evaluate based on the district court’s order. W e therefore remanded the case and asked the district court to make factual findings concerning the credibility of the trooper’s testimony. Id. at 1239. On remand the district court credited the trooper’s testimony, but nonetheless held that he lacked probable cause to conduct a search. United States v. Jurado-Vallejo, 380 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Jurado-Vallejo II”). The district court emphasized that the trooper had not inspected the passenger side or undercarriage of the vehicle, and had not touched or probed any of the wheel w ells. Id. W e reversed, holding that “if the district court credited [the trooper’s] testimony, there was probable cause to search.” Id. The question is not “whether [the officer] could have done more to confirm that the vehicle had a hidden compartment,” and there is no requirement that visual observations be - 20 - corroborated by touch or smell. Id. Rather, the issue is whether the evidence of a hidden compartment was sufficient to “‘warrant a [person] of reasonable caution to believe that evidence of a crime w ill be found at the place to be searched.’” Id. at 1241–42 (quoting United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 352 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir. 2003)). Jurado-Vallejo II stands for the proposition that visual evidence of a hidden compartment, without more, may provide probable cause to conduct or expand a search. In this case, Troopers Ranieri and Dean observed several suspicious modifications to the vehicle immediately upon opening the back doors to the van. The side panels appeared to have been removed and reattached repeatedly, the “screw s and stuff w ere all scarred and marked up,” and the carpet and panels were no longer aligned. Appellee’s Supp. App. 44–45. Trooper Ranieri’s suspicion “skyrocketed” when he saw those alterations, id. at 45, all of which were plainly visible from the troopers’ position in the back of the van, where M s. ConcepcionLedesma explicitly authorized them to go. See M em. & Order 5 (responding that she had no contraband “in the back” and authorizing Trooper Ranieri to “look back there”). Because the evidence was highly probative of the existence of a secret compartment, and because it is difficult to imagine a licit purpose for a large hidden compartment in a vehicle the size of a Chevy van, these signs of a hidden compartment strongly suggest— and perhaps even singlehandedly establish— probable cause to search behind the side panels in the rear of the van. - 21 -