United States v. Cortez

• Decision Date: 14 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-2059,No. 19-2058,19-2058
• Citation: 965 F.3d 827
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raquel CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josefina Reyes-Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

965 F.3d 827

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Raquel CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Josefina Reyes-Moreno, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2058

No. 19-2059

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED July 14, 2020

Daniel Rubin (Meghan D. McLoughlin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on the joint briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for Appellants.

Jennifer Rozzoni, Assistant United States Attorney (John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, with her on the briefs), Office of the United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Appellee.

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge.

After a routine traffic stop in New Mexico led to Raquel Cortez and Josefina Reyes-Moreno's indictment for conspiring to transport undocumented aliens, both defendants jointly moved to suppress evidence based on Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations they allege occurred during the stop. The district court found no constitutional violations and denied the motion.

We agree no constitutional violations occurred during the stop. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred because none of the law enforcement officers’ initial questions impermissibly delayed the stop and, during the stop, the officers developed reasonable suspicion the defendants were transporting undocumented aliens, justifying a further detention until Border Patrol arrived. No Fifth Amendment violation occurred because neither Cortez nor Reyes-Moreno faced custodial interrogation during the stop, rendering the absence of Miranda warnings harmless.

We therefore AFFIRM.

I. Background

Sergeant Alvarez, a New Mexico State Police Officer, was parked on State Road 80—a two-lane highway running north-south in southwest New Mexico —when he recorded a northbound pickup truck going 66 mph in a 55 mph zone. Sergeant Alvarez turned on his vehicle's emergency lights, triggering the vehicle's dashboard camera, and pulled the pickup over for speeding. The stop occurred about fifty miles from the Mexico border, and State Road 80 does not have a Border Patrol checkpoint on it.

Traveling in the pickup were six individuals: Cortez and Reyes-Moreno, two small children, and two adult male passengers. Cortez and Reyes-Moreno, who are biological half-sisters and U.S. citizens, were in the front seat along with one of the children, their nine-year-old niece. The other child, Cortez and Reyes-Moreno's eleven-year-old nephew, rode in the back with the two adult men.¹

Sergeant Alvarez initially approached the vehicle and spoke to the driver, Cortez. They discussed how fast Cortez had been going, and Sergeant Alvarez asked for Cortez's license, insurance, and registration. Then, as was his practice, he asked Cortez to come stand at the front right bumper of his police vehicle. She obliged, and he followed her back to the squad car. According to his testimony, Sergeant Alvarez did not notice the male passengers in the back seat at this time.

Back at his police vehicle, while running Cortez's license through his computer system to check for outstanding warrants, Sergeant Alvarez asked Cortez a series of questions regarding her travel plans and whom she was traveling with. He asked where Cortez was coming from, where she was headed, and who was traveling with her. Cortez replied that she was coming from Douglas, Arizona—which lies right on the Mexico border—and that she was heading to Alabama with her sister, niece, and nephew. Cortez did not mention the two adult men in the back seat.

Sergeant Alvarez asked a few questions regarding the relationship between Cortez, Reyes-Moreno, and the children. He also inquired how long Cortez had been in Douglas, whether she was working there, and where and with whom she was staying while in Douglas. Cortez replied that she had not been working in Douglas, and had been staying with her boyfriend. When Sergeant Alvarez asked what he did for a living, she replied that he was a truck driver. Finally, Sergeant Alvarez asked whose truck Cortez was driving, to which she responded that it was Reyes-Moreno's vehicle.

Sergeant Alvarez then returned to the pickup to "check some numbers," while Cortez remained by the police vehicle. The officer later testified that he was checking the truck's vehicle identification number at this time and the dashboard camera video shows he checked something on the driver's side of the truck. Sergeant Alvarez then walked around to the passenger side and asked Reyes-Moreno a series of questions similar to those he posed to Cortez.²

While talking with Reyes-Moreno, Sergeant Alvarez noticed the two adult men in the back seat of the pickup. He asked Reyes-Moreno about the men, and later testified that she became defensive "like she didn't want to be asked any questions about the people that she was with." R. at 108. Ultimately, Reyes-Moreno said she did not know the men and that she and Cortez had picked them up at a gas station. Sergeant Alvarez asked the men for identification. Initially, neither responded. They looked straight ahead "as if they didn't hear what [Sergeant Alvarez] said." R. at 101. After another inquiry, the men simply replied "no." Id .

At this point in time, approximately seven minutes into the stop, Sergeant Alvarez returned to his police vehicle and radioed for assistance from Border Patrol. He then proceeded to complete the remaining portions of the traffic stop, including discussing how fast Cortez had been going, what her options were for paying the ticket, and whether she planned to pay or contest the ticket.

Sergeant Alvarez also continued to ask Cortez questions regarding whom she was traveling with, the circumstances surrounding picking up the two men, and whether there are a lot of lakes in Alabama.³ During this time, Sergeant Gomez, another New Mexico State Police Officer, arrived on the scene. She discussed Cortez's speed with Sergeant Alvarez and participated in some of the questioning of Cortez.

Approximately twenty minutes into the stop, Border Patrol arrived. Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Alvarez indicated the traffic stop had concluded, returning Cortez's license and providing her with a completed citation. In the subsequent immigration investigation conducted by Border Patrol, the two adult men admitted they were undocumented and present in the United States unlawfully.

As a result, Cortez and Reyes-Moreno were charged with conspiracy to transport undocumented persons under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). In district court, they filed a joint motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained from the traffic stop. Relying on Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), they argued that Sergeant Alvarez violated their Fourth Amendment rights by impermissibly extending the scope of the stop beyond its mission without independent reasonable suspicion. They also contended Sergeant Alvarez violated their Fifth Amendment rights by questioning them without first providing Miranda warnings.

The district court denied the motion. With respect to the Fourth Amendment claims, the district court rejected the notion that any of Sergeant Alvarez's conduct impermissibly extended the scope or duration of the stop. As to the Fifth Amendment claims, it found the circumstances of the stop did not necessitate Miranda warnings because neither Cortez nor Reyes-Moreno ever faced custodial interrogation. Cortez and Reyes-Moreno subsequently pleaded guilty, but reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of their suppression motion.

II. Analysis

Cortez and Reyes-Moreno allege the district court erred by denying their motion to suppress in the face of Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, accept the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and review de novo the ultimate question of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment."⁴ United States v. McNeal , 862 F.3d 1057, 1061 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Lopez , 849 F.3d 921, 925 (10th Cir. 2017) ).

A. Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. A traffic stop is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, subject to the reasonableness requirement therein. United States v. Pettit , 785 F.3d 1374, 1379 (10th Cir. 2015). To be reasonable, a traffic stop must be justified at its inception and the officer's actions must be "reasonably related in scope" to the "mission of the stop." United States v. Mayville , 955 F.3d 825, 829 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 356, 135 S.Ct. 1609 ).⁵

An officer's authority to seize the occupants of a vehicle ends when "tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed." Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 354, 135 S.Ct. 1609. An officer may not constitutionally prolong a stop beyond that point except where (1) the seized individual consents or (2) the officer has independent reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing on behalf of the seized individual that justifies further investigation. See Mayville , 955 F.3d at 830 (citing Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 354–57, 135 S.Ct. 1609 ); see also Pettit , 785 F.3d at 1379 ("Continued detention is lawful only if the encounter becomes consensual or if, during the initial lawful traffic stop, the officer develops a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the detained person is engaged in criminal activity.").

Cortez and Reyes-Moreno argue that Sergeant Alvarez unreasonably extended the scope of the stop by asking questions unrelated to the mission of writing a traffic citation, and that he did so without independent reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.⁶ Taking these arguments in reverse order, we...