Opinion ID: 65371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion Analysis

Text: As stated above, the only issue in this case is whether the agents had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Rodriguez contends that five aspects of the exchange among the agents belie the district court's finding of reasonable suspicion. These are: 1. The relatively nonspecific nature of the BOLO report made by Hardin and relied upon by Coronado; 2. The long period of time between when Hardin first saw the Ford Tempo and when Coronado began to follow it, given the short physical distance; 3. The observation that Rodriguez's passenger crouched in his seat and that Rodriguez failed to look at Coronado; 4. The observation that Rodriguez glanced frequently in his rearview mirror and drifted from his lane of traffic, including moving over to the shoulder and slowing down; and 5. The observation that Rodriguez abruptly pulled into a convenience store after being followed. In response, the Government claims that eleven facts and reasonable inferences supported the investigatory stop. These are: 1. The agents' extensive experience and training; 2. The agents' extensive experience patrolling the relevant areas; 3. The status of the routes involved as known narcotics smuggling routes; 4. The prior apprehensions of narcotics smugglers on Highway 1024; 5. That Rodriguez's vehicle did not fit the usual traffic patterns; 6. That the agents did not recognize Rodriguez as a local resident; 7. That Rodriguez's vehicle was initially encountered less than 10 miles from the border; 8. That the front seat passenger moved back in his seat and crouched down upon spotting law enforcement; 9. That Rodriguez was traveling well below the posted speed limit; 10. That Rodriguez continuously looked in his rear-view mirror and swerved over the yellow highway dividing line; and 11. That the agents received specific information about Rodriguez's illegal activities, which was corroborated by eight different aspects of the agents' interaction with Rodriguez and the occupants of the Chevy SUV. Rodriguez's claims will be assessed in turn.
[A]n alert or BOLO report may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop. Gonzalez, 190 F.3d at 672. Whether a particular tip or BOLO report provides a sufficient basis for an investigatory stop may depend upon [1] the credibility and reliability of the informant, [2] the specificity of the information contained in the tip or report, [3] the extent to which the information in the tip or report can be verified by officers in the field, and [4] whether the tip or report concerns active or recent activity, or has instead gone stale. Id. ( Gonzalez factors). Rodriguez claims the BOLO report was not specific enough to support the stop and argues that it failed to specify the vehicle's license plate number, state of registration, and other distinguishing information. Review of this mixed question of law and fact is de novo. As noted above, it is not clear whether the BOLO did contain a license plate number, albeit one that did not match Rodriguez's car. More importantly, the Fourth Amendment does not require that a BOLO specifically include a vehicle's license plate number or registration information. The BOLO contained a great deal of detail, even though it was brief. The BOLO's identification of a car by its make, model, body style, and by the number, ethnicity, sex, and attire of its occupants, on such a sparsely traveled road, might have been sufficient in itself to support a stop. But Rodriguez fails to acknowledge that the agents did not stop the Ford Tempo solely as a result of the BOLO alert. In fact, Coronado followed Rodriguez's Tempo for approximately 50 miles before directing Hodges to pull it over. Although he was alerted to Rodriguez's car by the BOLO, Coronado also articulated other specific facts and rational inferences from those facts, detailed supra, that supported the stop. See Jacquinot, 258 F.3d at 427. In addition, the first, third, and fourth Gonzalez factors, unchallenged by Rodriguez, all favor the Government, even if the stop were understood to have resulted from the BOLO alert alone. First, the informant was Goitia, the person who confessed to being involved in narcotics trafficking with Rodriguez. The slip of paper in Goitia's wallet contained information on a similar car, but the fact that the license plates on that slip of paper did not match Rodriguez's is not dispositive; as Goitia explained to the agents, the plates on the slip of paper belonged to a different Ford Tempo that the ring was also using for smuggling. Even if Hardin also relayed the inconsistent information from the slip of paper, the fact that Rodriguez's car matched a lesser quantum of the information would not in itself vitiate the BOLO on these facts. We emphasize that we do not reach the question whether this BOLO itself would have been sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop. The third and fourth Gonzalez factors clearly favor the Government: the tip was in fact verified to a significant extent by officers in the field, who observed the suspicious behavior of Rodriguez's car as they followed it for over 50 miles, and the report concerned not merely recent but in fact contemporaneous activity: ongoing drug-smuggling.