Court Opinion

ID: 9494608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:41:54.498245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:30.393944
License: Public Domain

POGUE, Judge United States Court of International Trade,
Dissenting:
I believe that this case is controlled by United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.2000). As the majority opinion notes, Herrera fled into an area from which there was no escape. See supra page 1216. He was undisputably “de*1220prived of [his] liberty and prevented from going at large within the United States.” United States v. Pacheco-Medina, at 1164 (quoting Ex parte Chow Chok, 161 F. 627, 630 (N.D.N.Y.1908), aff'd, 163 F. 1021 (2d Cir.1908)).
The majority opinion attempts to distinguish Pacheco-Medina by claiming that “[p]ersistent tracking, rather than visual surveillance, led to Herrera’s apprehension,” supra page 1219, but the testimony was that the defendant was captured fewer than fifty yards from the International Border Fence in the bushes from which there was no escape. (E.R. at 131-134.) In this circumstance, I believe the testimony on “tracking” to be irrelevant.
Accordingly, I dissent.