Opinion ID: 606248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the stop of the truck valid?

Text: 13 All three appellants argue that the stop of the truck was invalid because (1) the stop was pretextually based on alleged traffic violations; and (2) even if not pretextual, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. With regard to appellant Leon, the government contends that he lacks standing to challenge the stop of the vehicle. We conclude that the stop was valid and thus do not reach the standing issue. 14 The district court upheld the stop of the car, stating: 15 First of all, with respect to the stop of the pickup truck, probably wasn't probable cause, but I think there was certainly reasonable suspicion with respect to traffic violations. That's abundantly clear. I find that to be the case. And I think there's a difference, you know, if somebody may be speeding, somebody may be making lane changes, somebody may be tailgating, but I think the pattern of evasive driving, testified to by the officers, is something else. And all of these numerous violations piled one on top of the other is adequate cause for a traffic stop. 16 Leon's E.R. at 177. 17 Appellants do not contest the fact that the traffic violations could have given rise to reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop the truck. Instead, appellants contend that the violations were used improperly as a pretext to search for evidence to support the detectives' narcotics conspiracy theory. Leon argues that the case should be remanded because the district court failed to consider the pretext argument. See, e.g., United States v. Gutierrez-Mederos, 965 F.2d 800 (9th Cir.1992) (To evaluate the validity of appellant's claim, we must review the district court's factual finding regarding the motivation or primary purpose of the arresting officer.), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. Dec. 9, 1992) (No. 92-6924); United States v. Brewer, 947 F.2d 404, 412 (9th Cir.1991) (district court ordered to address pretext argument on remand). 18 We disagree. As the above statement by the district court demonstrates, the district court determined that the officers' testimony as to the reasons for stopping the truck was credible. We agree with the district court's assessment of the situation. Further, we believe that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the truck even without the traffic violations. 19 An investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981); see also United States v. Sutton, 794 F.2d 1415, 1426 (9th Cir.1986) (Founded suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific articulable facts, together with the rational inferences drawn therefrom, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the person to be detained may have committed or is about to commit a crime.). Courts have come to describe the concept of cause necessary to effectuate a stop as reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court recently described reasonable suspicion: 20 Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause. 21 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). Thus, the totality of circumstances or whole picture must be taken into account to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists. Id.; see Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417. 22 One factor that can inform a court when looking to the totality of circumstances is the information known to the investigating officer--derived from the interplay of facts specific to the situation and the experience of the officer. Thus, inferences drawn by a trained officer are important to any inquiry of whether reasonable suspicion existed to effectuate a valid stop. Id.; see also United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 (1988). 23 Viewing the whole picture of the present case, it is clear that specific, articulable facts gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. First, the residence from which the defendants emerged had been under surveillance for suspected narcotics activity. Second, several times during the day of and prior to the arrest the defendants drove vehicles in a suspicious fashion. This included driving to another residence and stopping for only a few minutes, driving on the freeway only to exit and turn around and return to the Whitmore residence, and going to a nearby supermarket only to walk in and out in the same motion. Further, during all of these occurrences detectives observed the occupants of the vehicles continuously looking behind them. Third, detectives observed Sosa, Pedraza, and a third codefendant place several bags in the back of the truck and drive away. As the detectives followed, the truck began to drive erratically on the freeway and the occupants made motions pointing out the detectives. 24 At this point the detectives had observed a pattern of behavior over a period of two days (among people emerging from a residence already under surveillance for narcotics activity) that was consistent with counter-surveillance techniques used by individuals involved in the drug business. See United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1989) (evidence of driving typical of counter-surveillance techniques probative in case to determine higher standard of probable cause), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 80 (1990). The detectives based this on their considerable experience as law enforcement officers. As described, this situation seems to come within the definitions of reasonable suspicion enumerated above: specific facts that lead to rational inferences by experienced law enforcement agents that criminal activity is afoot. 25