U.S.A. v. Eustaquio, 99-1772NE
Decision Date | 15 November 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 99-1772NE,99-1772NE |
Citation | 198 F.3d 1068 |
Parties | (8th Cir. 1999) United States of America, Appellee, v. Veronica Eustaquio, Appellant. Submitted: |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Veronica Eustaquio was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The defendant filed a motion to suppress a package containing one-half kilo of cocaine, which was found in a search of her person. The District Court denied the motion. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to this appeal. She was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. On defendant's appeal, we now reverse.
On September 19, 1997, the defendant arrived at Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Nebraska, on a Southwest Airlines flight. Investigator Lutter and Sergeant Burns, members of the Commercial Interdiction Unit of the Nebraska State Patrol, observed defendant leave the plane and walk through the airport directly to a taxi stand. The officers, noting that the defendant did not stop for any luggage, and believing she was acting "as if she was forcing herself to appear relaxed," approached her at the taxi stand. Lutter and Burns identified themselves as law enforcement officers, and asked if they could talk with her. The officers explained that she was not required to do so, and could leave. The defendant indicated that she had a minute.
The defendant gave Lutter her California driver's license and plane ticket when asked to do so. The ticket was a one-way fare from Ontario, California, which had been purchased that same day with cash. Lutter then informed the defendant that he was a narcotics investigator looking for people carrying drugs into Nebraska. Lutter asked the defendant if she had any contraband with her, and the defendant responded that she did not. The defendant then allowed the officers to search her luggage. When asked why she had come to Omaha, the defendant replied that she had come to visit friends and family. Lutter testified at trial that at this point defendant was looking increasingly nervous, and held her jacket over her crossed arms very closely to her body. Lutter asked to search her jacket, and defendant again consented.
Lutter, still suspicious, asked the defendant to pull her clothes tight against her upper body. He demonstrated with his own shirt what he wanted her to do. Defendant did the opposite of what she was asked, and pulled her shirt away from her body. Despite this, Lutter saw what appeared to be a line or a bulge just to the outside of her body. Lutter "reflexively" reached out and poked the observed bulge with his finger, and asked what it was. The defendant jumped back, and told Lutter that he could not touch her.
At this point, Lutter told the defendant that he was detaining her, and that she must accompany him to the interdiction office at the airport. Once at the office, Lutter told the defendant that he was going to apply for a warrant to search her. She responded that Lutter should just go ahead and search her. Lutter explained that she did not have to allow this search, and that there was a chance the warrant might not be granted. Defendant again stated she could be searched.
Officer Russo, a female airport police officer, took the defendant to a room in the back of the interdiction office. After again receiving the defendant's permission, she began to perform a pat-down search. Ms. Eustaquio then produced a package from beneath her corset containing 500 grams of powder cocaine.
After several hearings, including an in-court demonstration, the District Court reached the following findings and conclusions: (1) the officers could not have determined that the defendant was concealing contraband on the basis of visual observations only (although they could have determined she was wearing a corset); (2) defendant's detention began when Lutter observed the bulge in the defendant's clothing as she pulled her shirt away from her abdomen; (3) that detention was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and (4) that probable cause to search the defendant existed from the moment she failed to follow the officer's request to manipulate her clothing.
The first question we must decide is at what point the encounter between the officers and the defendant stopped being consensual, and became a detention. At that point, the encounter becomes a Fourth Amendment seizure, and must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989). We review the trial court's findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard, and review the determination of the existence of reasonable suspicion de novo. See United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 918 (8th Cir. 1994).
The District Court found that the detention began when Lutter observed the bulge in the defendant's clothing as she pulled her shirt away from her abdomen. Alternatively, the government argues that the encounter was consensual until Lutter touched the bulge in defendant's midsection.
The government offers the following as grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity: (1) defendant's exhibiting nervous movement and a straight-ahead gaze; (2) defendant's choice of a direct path to leave the terminal; (3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Price-Williams
...response.").139 Reid v. Georgia , 448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) (per curiam).140 United States v. Eustaquio , 198 F.3d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting Fourth Amendment violation when "too many people fit this description for it to justify a reasonable suspicion......
-
United States v. Hassanshahi
...tainted and could not contribute retrospectively to establishing reasonable suspicion for the prolonged stop); United States v. Eustaquio, 198 F.3d 1068, 1071–72 (8th Cir.1999) (“As the touching of the defendant's midriff area was violative of the Fourth Amendment, any evidence resulting th......
-
Cronin v. Peterson
...and public interests when law enforcement officials must make a limited intrusion on less than probable cause"); United States v. Eustaquio , 198 F.3d 1068, 1070 (8th Cir. 1999) (when encounter becomes a Fourth Amendment seizure, it must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal acti......
-
State v. Hammond
...2000). ''Too many people fit this description for it to justify a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.'' United States v. Eustaquio, 198 F.3d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 1999). In short, these details did not supply sufficient indicia of reliability to establish the reasonable suspicion requ......
-
Car Stops, Borders, and Profiling: the Hunt for Undocumented (illegal?) Immigrants in Border Towns
...131 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir. 1997). 164. United States v. Yousif, 308 F.3d 820, 828 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Eustaquio, 198 F.3d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 165. Randal C. Archibold, Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, N.Y. Times, Apr. 23, 2010, at A1. ...