U.S. v. Castorena-Jaime
| Decision Date | 27 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 00-40061-01-SAC to 00-40061-03-SAC.,s. 00-40061-01-SAC to 00-40061-03-SAC. |
| Citation | 117 F.Supp.2d 1161 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Julio N. CASTORENA-JAIME, Alma R. Trejo, and Ramona Alvarez, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David J. Phillips, Office of Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, KS, Marilyn M. Trubey, Office of Federal Public Defender, Topeka, KS, for Julio N. Castorena-Jaime.
Edward M. Callazo, Topeka, KS, for Alma R. Trejo.
F. G. Manzanares, Topeka, KS, for Ramona Alvarez.
Anthony W. Mattivi, Office of U.S. Attorney, Topeka, KS, for U.S.
The case comes before the court on the defendants' pretrial motions. The defendant Castorena-Jaime has filed: Motion to Suppress his post-arrest statements (Dk. 48); Motion to Suppress evidence seized and statements made as a result of the vehicular search (Dk. 49); and a Motion for 404(b) Disclosure (Dk. 50). The government has filed its response to these motions. (Dk. 56). The defendant Trejo has filed a Motion to Join (Dk. 55) the defendant Castorena-Jaime's Motion to Suppress evidence and statements (Dk. 49). The defendant Alvarez has filed the following motions:
Motion for 404(b) Disclosure (Dk. 36); Motion to Compel Disclosure of promises of immunity or leniency (Dk. 38); Motion to View physical evidence (Dk. 40); Motion for Bill of Particulars (Dk. 41); Motion for Discovery (Dk. 42); and Motion to Join (Dk. 43). The government has filed a separate response to the motions of defendant Alvarez. (Dk. 46).
The court heard the parties' arguments and evidence on August 16, 2000. After reviewing all matters submitted and researching the relevant law, the court issues the following as its ruling on these motions.
Julio N. Castorena-Jaime, Alma R. Trejo, and Ramona Alvarez are the named defendants in a single-count indictment charging possession with the intent to distribute approximately 3.5 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Trooper Doug Rule has worked for the Kansas Highway Patrol since 1991. He has at least 200 hours of training and/or teaching in criminal interdiction. He estimates being involved in more than 150 drug seizures that were large enough to meet the reporting requirements of El Paso Intelligence Center. For the last several years or more, he has worked the majority of his time on Interstate 70 in western Kansas. He is a dog handler and wears a uniform that consists of military style pants, a shirt with "state trooper" on the back, and other patches and badges that identify him as a trooper with the Kansas Highway Patrol.
On May 16, 2000, Trooper Rule was patrolling the westbound lane of Interstate 70 near mile post 148 when he observed a grey Buick with three occupants traveling eastbound. Using radar, he measured the Buick's speed at 80 miles per hour in a 70 miles per hour zone. Turning around in the median, Trooper Rule caught up with the car and noticed it was missing a side mirror. At that point, he activated his emergency lights and pulled the car over.
Upon walking up to the grey Buick, Trooper Rule saw two women in the front seat and a man lying down in the back seat. Speaking English, Rule explained the reasons for the traffic stop and asked the driver for her license, car registration and proof of insurance. The driver appeared to understand his request, as she provided a Minnesota title for the car and a California license identifying her as Alma Trejo. Trooper Rule observed the driver's demeanor was overly nervous for a typical traffic stop. Her hands were visibly shaking, and she made very little eye contact with him. Trooper Rule checked the license and title and handed them back to the driver. He went back to his patrol car where he wrote the warning citation.
When he returned with the warning citation, Trooper Rule observed that the male in the back seat was sitting upright. As was his practice while approaching or standing next to a stopped car, Rule visibly checked it for evidence of any other criminal activity, and for his own protection, he stayed alert to each occupant's movements. Trooper Rule then handed Ms. Trejo the warning citation and said, "just a warning, no money." Trooper Rule immediately noticed through the driver's side rear window a bundle laying on the floor behind the driver's seat.
The bundle was approximately five to six inches wide and four to six inches tall and approximately two inches thick. The bundle was wrapped heavily in tape. Based on his training and experience, Trooper Rule immediately recognized from the wrapping and size of the bundle that it was either illegal drugs or currency related to drug trafficking. Trooper Rule testified that during traffic stops he has seen "hundreds" of packages of similar size that were wrapped in tape like this bundle and that these packages usually contained illegal drugs, and if not drugs, then currency involved in drug trafficking.
Speaking principally to the male sitting in the back seat, Trooper Rule pointed toward the bundle and asked, "What do you have there in the back seat?" The videotape shows that Rule tried to open the locked back door and that the occupants responded to Rule's question but they cannot be heard over the background traffic noise. Trooper Rule testified that he observed the male trying to cover the bundle with trash found on the floor. The videotape shows the Trooper again point toward the back seat and say, "No, the brick down there." The videotape captures the male lifting items and moving in his seat, while the Trooper continues to point saying, "that thing right there." Rule finally extends his hand through the driver's window and points to the floor saying "that, hand it to me." The male in the back seat then gave Trooper Rule the bundle from the back seat floor without voicing any objection. Rule said the bundle felt "hard" like narcotics he had seized in the past.
As he began inspecting the bundle, Trooper Rule asked, "What do you have here?" and followed up with a request, "May I open it?" Though several seconds pass on the videotape after each question, the sounds of traffic cover any audible responses. Trooper Rule testified that Ms. Trejo said she did not know what was in the bundle and said "yes" to his request to open it. Trooper Rule placed the bundle on top of the car and using a knife from his pocket he cut into the bundle. He found a white powdery substance that he testified smelled like cocaine.
He then instructed the occupants to "turn off the car" and "to step out of the car." He repeated his command to step out of the car with "hands up." As Mr. Castorena-Jaime exited, Trooper Rule reminded him to get his hands up. and the defendant responded immediately by raising his hands. Trooper Rule next told Mr. Castorena-Jaime to lie down in the ditch. The videotape reflects that this command had to be repeated several times to Mr. Castorena-Jaime. The women passengers were told next to exit and lie down in the ditch.
Trooper Rule went to his patrol car and radioed for assistance. The audio portion of the videotape indicates the Trooper returned to the ditch and handcuffed the defendants. One of the female defendants is heard saying something that is inaudible to which the Trooper responds with the questions, "Got more on you, huh ma'am!" and "How much are you out?" The videotape again only captures inaudible responses from one or more of the defendants. Trooper Rule then directed one of the handcuffed female defendants to sit down in the front seat of his patrol car, as he began searching the back seat of the stopped car. When the woman did not obey, Trooper Rule stopped his search and placed the female defendant into his patrol car and the other woman into the stopped car, as he continued his search.
Trooper Rule subsequently directed Mr. Castorena-Jaime, who was now handcuffed, to stand between the cars and proceeded to pat down his pant legs. Finding another bundle, Trooper Rule asked Mr. Castorena-Jaime, "Is that all you have on you?" and "Is that it?" The defendant appears to have affirmatively responded. Trooper Rule then instructed Mr. Castorena-Jaime to sit down on the hood of the patrol car.
An audible switch sound is heard on the videotape at the same time that Trooper Rule reaches for his belt. Trooper Rule testified the audio on-off switch is carried on his belt. For the next several minutes, no sounds are recorded on the videotape. The court, however, can see Trooper Rule speaking to Mr. Castorena-Jaime and pointing at the drugs. From the visible shaking and nodding of his head, Mr. Castorena-Jaime is apparently responding to questions from the Trooper. The videotape shows that Trooper Rule again questioned Mr. Castorena-Jaime while he was searching the trunk.
The videotape next shows Trooper Rule stop in front of Mr. Castorena-Jaime. As he unbuttons his shirt pocket and removes what appears to a Miranda warning card, Trooper Rule is seen reaching again to his belt whereupon the audio portion of the videotape is restored. The videotape then captures Trooper Rule reading in English the Miranda warning to Mr. Castorena-Jaime and following up with the question, "Do you understand all of that?" Mr. Castorena-Jaime nodded his head slightly and made a response that is inaudible on the videotape. Trooper Rule subsequently asks several questions of Mr. Castorena-Jaime, including whether the cocaine is his. Trooper Rule testified that Mr. Castorena-Jaime basically responded to these question by indicating he did not understand English. After looking at his report, Trooper Rule did recall that Mr. Castorena-Jaime had said he did not know what was in the bundles.
Trooper Rule testified that besides the one bundle on the back seat floor, he found two more bundles on the defendant Castorena-Jaime and three bundles in a purse on the passenger-side front floor board. When tested and weighed, the six...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Alcarez-Mora
...812 F.2d 1302, 1307 [(10th Cir.1987), cert. denied 488 U.S. 983, 109 S.Ct. 534, 102 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988).] United States v. Castorena-Jaime, 117 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1170 (D.Kan.2000). The transcript shows that the large majority of the references to defendant's wife and children were made by defe......
-
U.S. v. Wiseman, 00-40096-01-SAC.
...812 F.2d 1302, 1307 [(10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 983, 109 S.Ct. 534, 102 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988).] United States v. Castorena-Jaime, 117 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1170 (D.Kan.2000). Defendant does not allege any of the traditional indicia of police coercion, and the record would not support su......
-
Drury v. State
...Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, "the statements must be the result of compulsion"); United States v. Castorena-Jaime, 117 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1170 (D.Kan.2000) ("... absent a showing of coercion or other misconduct by law enforcement, an arrestee's volunteered statements m......
-
People v. Vasquez
...indicated that he did not understand them, and what the defendant displayed in English language skills." (United States v. Castorena-Jaime (D. Kan. 2000) 117 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1171.) Defendant relies on United States v. Garibay (9th Cir. 1998) 143 F.3d 534 (Garibay), in support of his argumen......