Opinion ID: 1043044
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: 3d at 1059 (quoting Borgman, 646 F.3d at 523).

Text: Guevara points to United States v. Tovar–Valdivia, 193 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Jones, 254 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2001), which held that the mere observation of a non-anatomical bulge on someone’s person was, without additional information, insufficient to provide probable cause that contraband would be found in the bulge. Guevara argues that a hidden compartment, the contents of which are unknown, is logically indistinguishable from a non-anatomical bulge. Tovar and Jones are distinguishable from the present case in two important respects. First, there is a significant difference between searching a person and searching a vehicle. The court in Tovar stressed that the bulge might contain -12- anything—there were many conceivable and likely legal possibilities. “The bulges could have been bandages about his body, a money belt worn about his ribs, or any number of non-contraband items.” Tovar, 193 F.3d at 1028. In contrast, we think a hidden compartment in a car, particularly one hidden inside an engine, is far less likely to contain non-contraband or have a non-illegal purpose than a miscellaneous bulge in someone’s clothing. Thus, the location and nature of the compartment, irrespective of the drilling or opening of the compartment, provide some clue about its contents. Second, in other concealed bulge cases, we have upheld a finding of probable cause where the officer had additional information about what was in the bulge. See United States v. Aquino, 674 F.3d 918, 924–25 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing concealed bulge cases and noting a difference where the touching of the bulge leads to a belief about what is inside the bulge); see also United States v. Favela, 247 F.3d 838, 839 (8th Cir. 2001). We have found that an officer does not have to actually see the contraband inside the bulge. Aquino, 674 F.3d at 924–25. Instead, the officer has to form a reasonable belief about what is in the bulge, based on something other than simply observing the exterior of the bulge. Id. In the bulge cases, the officer may achieve this through a permissible touching of the bulge; if the officer believes she feels drugs or a weapon, the officer may have probable cause to arrest. Id. Applying the rule from Aquino, the troopers formed a belief about the contents of the hidden compartment based on something other than observing the exterior of the compartment. Drilling into the compartment provided the additional information necessary to buttress the troopers’ initial observations.4 After looking into the compartment and seeing something other than metal, particularly cardboard and 4 We can hardly fault the troopers for failing to engage in a far more destructive search of the compartment on the side of a busy highway, nor do we think that additional searching was necessary. -13- plastic, a prudent person would believe the compartment contained contraband and an offense was being committed. Thus, the troopers had probable cause to justify an arrest once it was clear that the engine compartment was not empty and the holes were drilled into the compartment.5 As an arrest, the officers were permitted to handcuff Guevara and transport her to the mechanic’s garage in the police car. Because Guevara was read her Miranda rights, any statements she made at the garage or later at the Nebraska State Patrol office are admissible.6