Court Opinion

ID: 9462151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:33:10.65172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:25.742833
License: Public Domain

ENRIGHT, District Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result. Given the limited nature of the intrusion and considering the facts known to the officers at the time of the stop of this particular *242car,1 I would hold the validity of the stop based on founded suspicion to be an extremely close issue. However, I would-uphold the trial court’s evaluation in granting the motion to suppress.
I would not agree that the authority of United States v. Torres-Urena, 513 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1975), is determinative of the issue raised, and would, on the facts of that case, agree with the views expressed in the dissenting opinion. However, I would concur that while some evidence of suspicious activity was known to the officers, that quantum of proof required for a founded suspicion stop was not met. United States v. Larios-Montes, 500 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1974); Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966).

. At the time of the stop of the defendant’s car, the officers knew that 1) in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, 30 vehicles, most of which were late model Ford LTD’s and pickups, were reported stolen in any given week; 2) probably half of these vehicles would be transported to Mexico; 3) young addicts were stealing these vehicles to exchange them for heroin in Mexico; 4) the driver of the vehicle was a young Mexican male; 5) the vehicle was a Ford LTD in showroom condition; and 6) the vehicle was traveling toward Mexico.