United States v. Berber-Tinoco
510 F.3d 1083, 75 Fed. R. Serv. 399, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29301 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a collection of individually innocent factors, when viewed in their totality through the lens of an officer's experience and training, can constitute a particularized and objective basis for reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.
Facts:
- Around 8:30 PM, a seismic intrusion device was activated in a rural area near the U.S.-Mexico border known for alien smuggling.
- Two hours later, around 10:30 PM, Border Patrol Officers Englehorn and Lenoir observed two vehicles, a Dodge Durango and a Ford pickup truck, on Lyons Valley Road in that area.
- The officers' experience indicated it would take approximately two hours for someone to walk from the border to this location.
- The two vehicles were driving unusually slowly, very close together, and braked repeatedly for no apparent reason.
- The officers followed the vehicles and observed them drive to a juvenile detention center, a known loading spot for aliens, where they turned around and headed back in the opposite direction.
- As the vehicles returned, the pickup truck pulled over briefly in another area known for loading aliens before continuing.
- David Berber-Tinoco was a passenger in one of the vehicles stopped by the officers.
Procedural Posture:
- David Berber-Tinoco was arrested and charged in federal district court with unlawful re-entry after deportation.
- Berber-Tinoco filed a motion to suppress his statements and fingerprints, arguing they were the fruit of an unlawful stop that violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Berber-Tinoco entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Berber-Tinoco (appellant) appealed the district court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a combination of factors, including a recent seismic sensor activation near the border, the late hour, the location's reputation as a smuggling corridor, and the unusual and evasive driving patterns of two vehicles, provide Border Patrol officers with the requisite reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to conduct an investigatory stop?
Opinions:
Majority - Ikuta, Circuit Judge
Yes, the combination of factors provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop. The court held that the validity of an investigatory stop is determined by the totality of the circumstances, which provides officers with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The court reasoned that while each factor in isolation might be susceptible to an innocent explanation, a 'divide-and-conquer' analysis is improper. Here, the officers' chain of deductions was reasonable: (1) the seismic sensor alarm indicated an illegal crossing; (2) the timing of the vehicles' arrival corresponded with the walking time from the border; (3) the location was a notorious smuggling area; and (4) the vehicles' slow, tandem driving, braking, and turning around at known pickup spots was suspicious behavior inconsistent with local traffic patterns. Giving due weight to the officers' experience and training, as required by precedent like United States v. Arvizu, these factors collectively created a reasonable, particularized suspicion of alien smuggling.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for reasonable suspicion, emphasizing that courts should not evaluate each factor in isolation. It highlights the significant weight given to law enforcement officers' experience and deductions, especially in the border patrol context. The case serves as a strong precedent for justifying investigatory stops based on a series of seemingly innocent behaviors that, when combined with context like location and timing, form a coherent picture of potential criminal activity. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge such stops by offering innocent explanations for each individual action.
