Opinion ID: 161398
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequate Substitute for a Warrant

Text: 19 To satisfy this requirement, a regulation must sufficiently inform the commercial property owner that his property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes, must notify owners as to who is authorized to conduct an inspection, and must limit the discretion of inspectors in time, place, and scope. Burger, 482 U.S. at 701-03; accord Means, 94 F.3d at 1425. 20 We find that the regulatory scheme governing commercial carriers provides adequate notice to owners and operators of commercial carriers that their property will be subject to periodic inspections and adequately limits the discretion of inspectors in place and scope. New Mexico law requires all commercial motor vehicle carriers to stop at every port of entry . . . for manifesting and clearance stickers. N.M. Stat. Ann. 65-5-1(A). The operators of commercial motor vehicle carriers are required, upon request, to produce a manifest containing fourteen specific items of information relating to the vehicle and its owner, driver, and cargo. N.M. Stat. Ann. 65-5-1(B). Inspectors at the port of entry are permitted to verify this information and to ascertain whether the condition of the vehicle is safe for operation on the state's highways. N.M. Stat. Ann. 65-5-1(C). To determine whether the vehicle is safe, those in charge of the port of entry are permitted to inspect the vehicle and its contents to determine whether all laws and all rules and regulations of the departments of [New Mexico] with respect to public safety, health, welfare and comfort have been fully complied with. N.M. Stat. Ann. 65-5-1(F) (emphasis added). New Mexico has also authorized its employees to enforce federal laws relating to commercial motor vehicle carriers. N.M. Stat. Ann. 65-1-9. 21 Along with numerous other requirements, both federal and New Mexico regulations require proper blocking and bracing. See 49 C.F.R. 393.104; N.M. Admin. Code 18.2.3.13. Proper blocking and bracing ensures that the cargo is secured 'so that, when the vehicle decelerates at a rate of 20 feet per second per second, the cargo will remain on the vehicle and will not penetrate the vehicle's front-end structure' and the cargo is protected against shifting sideways in transit. Burch, 153 F.3d at 1142 n.2 (quoting 49 C.F.R. 393.104). We have previously noted that [t]o check blocking and bracing, an officer must inspect the interior of a trailer. Id. Thus, we find in this case, as we found in Burch, that Defendant could not help but be aware that his property was subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes, including inspection of the blocking and bracing. Id. at 1142 (internal quotation marks omitted). 22 Unlike the statute considered in Burger, no time limitation is placed on the regulatory scheme governing commercial carriers. We agree with the Sixth Circuit, however, that [s]uch a limitation would, of course, render the entire inspection scheme unworkable and meaningless. Trucks operate twenty-four hours a day and the officers must, necessarily, have the authority to conduct these administrative inspections at any time. Dominguez-Prieto, 923 F.2d at 470. We therefore find that this regulatory scheme satisfies the third prong of the Burger test. 23 Having found that all three prongs of the Burger test are satisfied by the state and federal regulatory schemes governing commercial carriers, we find that Inspector Pacheco permissibly entered Mr. Vasquez-Castillo's trailer to inspect the blocking and bracing. He was, therefore, authorized by state and federal regulations to be in the trailer when he detected the odor of marijuana and observed the other aforementioned irregularities. 3 We now consider whether Inspector Pacheco had probable cause to search the secret compartment where the marijuana was hidden. 4 24