Court Opinion

ID: 9474718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:06:54.859417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:17.690827
License: Public Domain

GARZA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
While I agree with the majority that the government provided only limited evidence to support reasonable suspicion to stop Serrano’s car and that they probably could have done a better job, I still believe that the evidence was sufficient to create the necessary suspicion required for officer Hankin to stop the automobile in question.
To stop the great influx of aliens entering illegally into this country daily, we must not tie the hands of our immigration officers. We all realize that our border contains miles and miles of unmanned crossings. We took a giant step when we called our immigration checkpoints away from the border an equivalance to a border check. Another giant step to stem the flow of illegal aliens into this country was taken when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).
We realize that the immigration officers involved in this case were many miles from the border, but they were there because many aliens evade detection closer to the border. My own interpretation of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that Officer Hankin had sufficient facts before him *303to make him have the necessary suspicion to stop the Camaro in this case.
The majority attaches very little significance to officer Hankin’s testimony that Serrano tried to evade him first by keeping a vehicle between himself and the side of 1-35 and then by rapidly accelerating once past Hankin. They say they attach little significance because Hankin’s vehicle was not marked and he was not in uniform. Serrano already had the opportunity to see officer Caplinger’s car parked on the side of 1-35. Smugglers know that INS officers do this. While officer Hankin’s vehicle was not marked and he was not in uniform, he was parked on the side of 1-35 and was using binoculars and probably Serrano saw this, and to me that’s the reason that he accelerated and why officer Hankin had to drive at speeds of over 100 miles to catch up with him. If you give credence to this part of the testimony, and the court below did, and you give credence to the other facts found, even in the majority opinion, we cannot say that officer Hankin did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to make the stop in this case.
I would affirm the court below on its denial of the motion to suppress.