People v. Sanchez

• Citation: 195 Cal.App.3d 42,240 Cal.Rptr. 413
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 25 September 1987
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mario Cruz SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant. D005398.

Page 413

240 Cal.Rptr. 413

195 Cal.App.3d 42

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mario Cruz SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

D005398.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Sept. 25, 1987.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Pat Zaharopoulos and Jay M. Bloom, Supervising Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent

Peter W. Cowan, San Diego, for defendant and appellant.

WORK, Acting Presiding Justice.

Mario Cruz Sanchez appeals a judgment convicting him of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). After his motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, § 1538.5) was denied, he pled guilty. His sole contention is the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, because the detention, search and seizure of the bindle of heroin by the narcotics officer were illegal. For the reasons which follow, we conclude Sanchez

has failed to establish the underlying intent of the Narcotics Task Force (NTF) in pairing the Border Patrol agent with the police officer was to circumvent the protections of the Fourth Amendment, and further their contact with Sanchez simply constituted a consensual encounter not triggering Fourth Amendment scrutiny. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 28, 1986, Roland Richardson was a United States Border Patrol agent assigned to work with the NTF agents in Imperial County and specifically Hector Rios, a Calexico police officer. Richardson was part of a program within which the Border Patrol allocated a position to the NTF to help combat aliens involved in narcotic trafficking in Imperial County. He regularly worked with the NTF officers; however, his salary was paid by the Border Patrol just as agents from other law enforcement branches were paid by their agencies when working with the NTF. Moreover, the participation of the Border Patrol in the NTF is designed to promote not only cooperation among the agencies, but also the NTF's primary purpose of confronting Imperial County's street narcotics problem. In his NTF assignment, Richardson participated in narcotics raids, arrested suspects, and executed search warrants.

One afternoon Richardson and Rios, dressed in plain clothes and in an unmarked vehicle, saw Sanchez walking with another individual westbound on 7th Street in Calexico, approximately one-half mile from the border. Richardson requested Rios to pull over for the express purpose to inquire regarding Sanchez' status in the United States. Because Sanchez had a soiled and unkempt appearance, Richardson suspected him to be an illegal alien; for, he had apprehended other illegal aliens in the area who used the same route apparently being traveled by Sanchez from the border. Richardson advised Sanchez he was a Border Patrol agent and asked where he was born and whether he had any documents on his person. Sanchez replied he was from Mexicali, Mexico and had no documents on him. Richardson detained him under the authority of the Immigration Nationality Act (INA). Meanwhile, Rios, who had already requested backup, noticed defendant had numerous injection "tracks" on both arms, droopy eyelids, slurred speech and constricted pupils, suggesting he was under the influence of a controlled substance. He then arrested and searched Sanchez, finding a bindle of heroin.

THE PROPRIETY OF THE STOP, DETENTION AND SEARCH

Sanchez contends the police officers serving on the NTF cannot exceed constitutional limitations on their powers simply because they are paired with Border Patrol agents who may have greater latitude in their investigative operations, permitting interrogations of suspected aliens without a warrant or independent evidence they are illegally in the United States, free of the stringent standards governing investigative stops or detentions by law enforcement officers set forth in In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957. Thus, he argues that pairing an NTF officer with a Border Patrol agent does not relieve the NTF officer of the probable cause strictures the Fourth Amendment places on detentions and searches. He urges this is not a case of one law enforcement agency's employing tools available to it, but rather one where a police officer is using the Border Patrol to circumvent constitutional requirements of probable cause to detain based on an objectively reasonable belief the person detained is involved in criminal activity. Given the different underlying purposes of the Border Patrol and the NTF, Sanchez asserts the latter cannot hide behind the former to avoid the constitutional guidelines under which it is required to exist. ¹ Accordingly, he asserts the detention, search and seizure of the Preliminarily, absent any evidence the underlying intent of the NTF pairing a Border Patrol agent with a participating law enforcement officer was to circumvent the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment, we are compelled to reject Sanchez' contention the pairing was so designed to give the police officer the same latitude as the Border Patrol agent regarding detentions and searches. Indeed, "[i]t is generally permissible for different law enforcement agencies to cooperate to ensure obedience to the law." (United States v. Troise (9th Cir. 1986) 796 F.2d 310, 312.) In any event, the encounter, arrest and search here were constitutional. ³

evidence by the narcotics officer were illegal and all evidence must be suppressed. ²

Section 1357 of Title 8 of the United States Code authorizes the officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to interrogate any person "believed to be an alien as to his right to be or remain in the United States." (8 U.S.C. § 1357, subd. (a)(1).) Because this authority is not unlimited and is subject to the search and seizure restraints of the Fourth Amendment, the INS is prohibited from detaining individuals for questioning about their citizenship absent a reasonable suspicion they may be aliens. (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) 422 U.S. 873, 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2581, 45 L.Ed.2d 607; United States v. Rodriguez-Franco (11th Cir.1985) 749 F.2d 1555, 1559.) However, "a request for identification by the INS does not, by itself, amount to a detention protected by the fourth amendment '[u]nless the circumstances of the encounter [were] so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded.' " (United States v. Rodriguez-Franco, supra, 749 F.2d at p. 1559, quoting INS v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 216, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1763, 80 L.Ed.2d 247; United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497.) Consequently, "[n]ot every encounter between law enforcement officers and an individual constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment." (United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez (11th Cir.1985) 774 F.2d 1036, 1040; INS v. Delgado, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 216, 104 S.Ct. at p. 1762; United States v. Espinosa-Guerra (11th Cir.1986) 805 F.2d 1502, 1506.) In fact, "[a] police officer may approach an individual in a public place, identify himself as a law enforcement officer, and, in a non-coercive manner, ask the individual a few questions, without converting the encounter into a seizure." (United States v. Espinosa-Guerra, supra, 805 F.2d at p. 1507; Florida v. Rodriguez (1984) 469 U.S. 1, 5-6, 105 S.Ct. 308, 310-311, 83 L.Ed.2d 165; see Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1323, 75 L.Ed.2d 229; see also United States v. Brown (11th Cir. 1984) 731 F.2d 1491, 1493, modified, 743 F.2d 1505.)

Applying the foregoing rules, Agent Richardson's encounter with Sanchez, involving his identification as a Border Patrol agent and questioning Sanchez as to his place of birth and whether he had any documents on him, did not amount to a detention protected by the Fourth Amendment. The record lacks any indication their dialogue was coercive or that Sanchez reasonably believed he was restrained and not free to go. (See United States v. Espinosa-Guerra, supra, 805 F.2d at p. 1507.) Not only was there nothing apparent in Similarly, Officer Rios was likewise entitled to participate in this citizen-police encounter. Following federal case precedent, our Supreme Court has recognized consensual encounters between police and citizens result in no restraint on an individual's liberty and thus no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment even when initiated by law enforcement without objective justification. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784, 195 Cal.Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325; see Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319; People v. Franklin (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 935, 939, 237 Cal.Rptr. 840; People v. Epperson, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 120, 232 Cal.Rptr. 16.) In fact, the court in Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d at page 790, 195 Cal.Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325, held the detective did not detain Wilson merely by approaching him, identifying him as a police officer and asking him whether he...