U.S. v. Reiner Ramos

• Decision Date: 15 July 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 86-5389,86-5390,s. 86-5389
• Citation: 818 F.2d 1392
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roberto REINER RAMOS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elsa CARIDAO GONZALEZ, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1392

818 F.2d 1392

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roberto REINER RAMOS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elsa CARIDAO GONZALEZ, Appellant.

Nos. 86-5389, 86-5390.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 1987.

Decided May 18, 1987.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 15, 1987.

Phillip S. Resnick, Minneapolis, Minn. and Carl H. Lida, Miami, Fla., for appellants.

Joseph T. Walbran, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, and HANSON, ^* Senior District Judge.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Roberto Ramos and Elsa Gonzalez appeal their joint convictions of possession of cocaine with intent distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1982) and of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846 (1982). The sole error they urge for reversal is the district court's ¹ refusal to suppress approximately four pounds of cocaine seized pursuant to their warrantless arrests. Ramos and Gonzalez contend that the arresting officers lacked probable cause because the information provided to the police by the principal informant was sketchy and uncorroborated. We affirm the judgments of conviction.

As Ramos and Gonzalez challenge the adequacy of the information possessed by the police before their arrests, we will relate that information in some detail. In the fall of 1985, Officer Gerard Bohlig of the St. Paul Police Department assisted in the investigation of a cocaine distribution organization in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area headed by one Magda Llovet. Llovet was convicted and imprisoned at the Ramsey County Adult Detention Center. In November 1985, Bohlig received a tip from a confidential informant, referred to in the record as Informant No. 1, that Llovet was still conducting her cocaine operation from jail. Informant No. 1 spoke with Bohlig by telephone or in person about twice a week from November until the arrests of Ramos and Gonzalez in March 1986. He told Bohlig that he had personal knowledge that Llovet carried on her operation with the assistance of one Manuela Flores and a man named Ramos. Flores, according to the informant, was the liaison between Llovet, Ramos, and various other members of the organization. Informant No. 1 also gave Bohlig Flores' telephone number. Bohlig checked the Ramsey prison vistor records and confirmed that an individual named Flores regularly visited Llovet during this time period. Flores' telephone number was also confirmed independently by another informant.

Informant No. 1 told Bohlig that Ramos brought four- to six-pound quantities of cocaine to St. Paul from Miami, Florida on quick turn-around flights about every two weeks. He described Ramos to Bohlig as being short, about 45 years old, light-skinned, and Hispanic. He said that Ramos did not speak English. He also said that Ramos traveled with a female companion and that when Ramos was in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, he stayed at either the Holiday Inn near the State Capitol Building or at the Quality Inn near the St. Paul Civic Center. Informant No. 1 told Bohlig that he had seen Ramos in a hotel in St. Paul with cocaine and customers present.

At the time Bohlig was talking with Informant No. 1, Sergeant Freichels of the St. Paul Police Department was told by another confidential informant, who had in the past provided information which led to a number of arrests and convictions and to the seizure of large quantities of cocaine, that Magda Llovet was continuing her cocaine distribution operation from jail. Informant No. 2 also told Freichels that Llovet was working through an individual named "Manuela." He gave Freichels the same telephone number for "Manuela" as Informant No. 1 had given Bohlig for Manuela Flores.

On March 3, 1986, Informant No. 1 told Bohlig that Ramos and his female companion were at the Holiday Inn near the State Capitol Building, in Room 510. By the time the police arrived, Ramos and his companion had departed. A search of Room 510 turned up two discarded airline boarding passes and tickets showing a March 2, 1986 flight from Miami to Minneapolis-St. Paul by Mr. Roberto Ramos and Mrs. Elsa Ramos.

Immediately thereafter, Bohlig's superior, Lieutenant Dugan, contacted an employee at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, and asked that this individual alert the police if Roberto Ramos purchased a ticket from Miami to Minneapolis-St. Paul. This citizen informant had provided Dugan with information in the past, and Dugan considered him reliable. On March 28, this informant reported that Ramos and Mrs. Coridao Gonzalez were traveling together on Northwest Flight 719 to Minneapolis-St. Paul. Airline employees verified their presence on the plane and described Ramos as a light-skinned Hispanic, short, in his 40's, and wearing a dark suit. His companion was described as a middle-aged woman with reddish hair wearing slacks and a floral print blouse. The two were scheduled to return to Miami on March 30.

Bohlig and one of his fellow officers waited at the arrival gate and observed the passengers departing from Flight 719. Only two passengers matched the descriptions of Ramos and Gonzalez, and Bohlig followed them from the gate to the baggage area, where they retrieved a suitcase, and then to the taxi stand, where they hired a cab. Bohlig followed their cab, supported by approximately five additional police cars and ten officers. The police stopped the cab as it entered St. Paul on Chestnut Street, which leads to the area of the Holiday Capitol Inn and Quality Inn identified by Informant No. 1. Evidently, some of the officers had their guns drawn at the time the police pulled over the cab.

A deputy sheriff patted Ramos down after Ramos climbed out of the cab. He testified at the suppression hearing that he felt a solid object around Ramos' torso which he thought could be a form of nonmetallic body armor. The deputy opened Ramos' shirt and discovered an elastic girdle-type sheath. The sheath had a number of sewn-in compartments containing packages of a white powdered substance that proved on later analysis to be cocaine. Additional packets of white powder were discovered strapped to each ankle.

Gonzalez was also patted down. The police discovered a similar girdle-type sheath containing packets of cocaine around her waist. Additional packets of cocaine were found about her ankles. In all, the police seized about four pounds of cocaine from Ramos and Gonzalez.

Before trial, Ramos and Gonzalez moved to suppress the cocaine, contending as they do here that the police lacked probable cause to stop the cab and arrest them. Both the magistrate ² and the district court on de novo review of the suppression hearing record and the magistrate's report and recommendation determined that the arrest was supported by adequate probable cause. See United States v. Ramos, 3-86-CR-51, slip op. at 7 (D.Minn. July 25, 1986) (denying motion to suppress evidence). Ramos and Gonzalez were convicted, after a bench-trial on stipulated facts, of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Ramos was sentenced to two concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment; Gonzalez was sentenced to two concurrent one-year terms of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

We review the district court's finding of probable cause to make the warrantless arrest of Ramos and Gonzalez under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Wajda, 810 F.2d 754, 758 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Eisenberg, 807 F.2d 1446, 1449 (8th Cir.1986). Under this standard, a finding is clearly erroneous if we, upon review of the entire record, are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, or if we conclude that the district court's determination is not supported by substantial record evidence or reflects an erroneous view of the applicable law. Eisenberg, 807 F.2d at 1450; United States v. Flett, 806 F.2d 823, 826 (8th Cir.1986). "Probable cause exists to make a warrantless arrest when, at the moment of the arrest, the collective knowledge of the officers involved, was 'sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [defendant] had committed or was committing an offense.' " Wajda, 810 F.2d at 758 (quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)); see also United States v. McGauley, 786 F.2d 888, 890 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Bubis, 744 F.2d 61, 64 (8th Cir.1984). "The determination of whether probable cause exists must not rest on isolated facts; rather it depends on the cumulative effect of the facts in the totality of the circumstances." Bubis, 744 F.2d at 64 (quoting United States v. Everroad, 704 F.2d 403, 406 (8th Cir.1983)); see also Eisenberg, 807 F.2d at 1451 (applying "totality of the circumstances" analysis to warrantless arrest). "This is a 'practical, commonsense,' and 'non-technical' determination." United States v. Briley, 726 F.2d 1301, 1306 n. 3 (8th Cir.1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)).

Ramos and Gonzalez argue that the information given the police by Informant No. 1 is too sketchy and indeterminate to "warrant a prudent man in believing," Beck, 379 U.S. at 91, 85 S.Ct. at 225, that they would be carrying cocaine to St. Paul on March 28, 1986. They also argue that the information provided by Informant No. 2 and the citizen informant added nothing to the credibility or veracity of Informant No. 1's assertions. They contend, moreover, that the police confirmed only a few innocent, insignificant details of Informant No. 1's tip. Thus, they argue, the collective knowledge and information of the officers making the arrests did not rise to the level of that approved by the Supreme Court in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), and in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, ...