U.S. v. Angulo-Guerrero

• Decision Date: 08 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-3486.,02-3486.
• Citation: 328 F.3d 449
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan ANGULO-GUERRERO, also known as Ramon Rocha-Lara, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

328 F.3d 449

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan ANGULO-GUERRERO, also known as Ramon Rocha-Lara, Appellant.

No. 02-3486.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 11, 2003.

Filed: May 8, 2003.

Carlos Monzon, argued, Lincoln, NE, for appellant.

Steven A. Russell, argued, Lincoln, NE, for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and

LOKEN,^* Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Juan Angulo-Guerrero, a passenger on a Greyhound bus, told a government agent conducting an immigration inspection that he was in the United States illegally and that he had been previously deported. Angulo-Guerrero was arrested and charged with illegally reentering the United States following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. After the district court^** denied his motion to suppress his statements to the officer, Angulo-Guerrero conditionally pleaded guilty. Angulo-Guerrero now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, and we affirm.

Angulo-Guerrero was a passenger on a bus that arrived in Ogallala, Nebraska, for a scheduled stop and driver exchange. Before any passengers got off the bus, special agents Johnson and Sattly boarded. They were wearing jackets bearing Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)^*** insignia, and were armed but did not display their weapons. The agents were conducting an immigration inspection operation on all east- and west-bound busses with scheduled stops at Ogallala, and explained this to the driver. Standing in the aisle at the front of the bus with Sattly behind him, Johnson explained to the passengers in both English and Spanish, "[T]his is an immigration inspection and when I approach you just state whether you're a United States citizen or not. And if [you are] not please have [your] immigration documents ready for inspection." Four to six passengers came forward and asked if they could leave the bus. Johnson asked the passengers whether they were American citizens. They responded affirmatively and left. Moving down the aisle towards the back of the bus, Johnson next came to Angulo-Guerrero, who was seated two rows behind the driver, and asked him in English whether he was a United States citizen. Angulo-Guerrero did not reply. Believing Angulo-Guerrero did not understand English, Johnson asked Angulo-Guerrero in Spanish where he was born. Angulo-Guerrero responded he was born in Mexico. Johnson then asked whether Angulo-Guerrero had any immigration documents, and Angulo-Guerrero said he did not. Johnson also asked Angulo-Guerrero whether he was in the United States legally or illegally. Angulo-Guerrero admitted he was here illegally, and Sattly escorted Angulo-Guerrero off the bus. After Johnson finished questioning the other passengers, he stepped off the bus and asked Angulo-Guerrero whether he had ever been deported. Angulo-Guerrero admitted he had.

On appeal, Angulo-Guerrero contends his motion to suppress should have been granted because the immigration inspection was an investigative detention without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. According to Angulo-Guerrero, the inspection was conducted in the close confines of a bus in a manner that restricted the passengers' movement and indicated that compliance with the agents was required.

The Supreme Court has recently explained the guiding legal principles:

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage-provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means. If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized.

United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 2110, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002) (citations omitted). The mere fact that police questioning takes place in the "cramped confines of a bus" does not transform the questioning into a seizure. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). The Fourth Amendment is implicated only when a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free not to respond to the officer's questions, viewed from the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 439-40, 111 S.Ct. 2382.

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held no seizure occurred when officers boarded a bus during a scheduled stop and began questioning passengers about their travel plans and baggage in a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort. Drayton, 122 S.Ct. at 2112. The officers gave the passengers no reason to believe they were required to answer the officers' questions, and did not brandish weapons or make any intimidating movements. Id. The officers questioned the passengers one by one, and nothing the officers said would have suggested to a reasonable person that he or she was barred from leaving the bus or otherwise terminating the encounter. Id. The fact that one of the officers stood at the front of the bus did not tip the scale in the defendant's favor. Id.

In another case, the Supreme Court held INS questioning of factory workers in their workplace about their citizenship was not a seizure even though uniformed INS agents were posted at the workplace exits and the workers were not told they need not respond. I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 211-12, 217, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984). The Court stated, "While most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response." Id. at 216, 104 S.Ct. 1758. The Court noted there was nothing in the record showing the agents stationed at the factory doors prevented anyone from leaving, and the obvious purpose of the agent's presence at the doors was to ensure all the workers were questioned. Id. at 218, 104 S.Ct. 1758.

Given these precedents, we conclude Angulo-Guerrero was not seized when he answered Johnson's questions on the bus. Johnson was moving down the aisle from the front towards the back of the bus to make sure all passengers were questioned and not to prevent them from leaving. Indeed, some passengers got up to leave and did so. The fact that Johnson asked them whether they were American citizens does not turn the encounter into a detention or seizure. Further, the fact that Johnson asked Angulo-Guerrero in Spanish where he was from after Angulo-Guerrero did not respond to his question in English did not constitute a show of authority creating a reasonable belief Angulo-Guerrero was not free to leave. There is simply no evidence that passengers would be detained if they refused to answer Johnson's questions. Likewise, the agents' appearance did not contribute to an atmosphere of coercion. The agents simply wore badges identifying themselves, and did not display their guns. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the district court properly denied Angulo-Guerrero's motion to suppress.

We thus affirm the district court.

* The Honorable James B. Loken became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2003.

** The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

*** The enforcement units of the INS have been incorporated into the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security.

LOKEN, Chief Judge, concurring.

I join the opinion of the court. But like Justice Powell, concurring in INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 221-24, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984), I believe the district court's suppression ruling must also be affirmed on an alternative ground. Given the government's important interest in enforcing the nation's immigration laws, I conclude that it was...