United States v. Ramos
| Decision Date | 30 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 15-3940 JB,CR 15-3940 JB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EVERETT RAMOS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Appeal of an Order Revoking the Defendant's Pre-Trial Release, filed October 31, 2016 (Doc. 68)("Appeal"). The Court held a hearing on November 21, 2016. The primary issue is whether, in this case, where the Defendant Everett Ramos is arguing that there is a substantial question of law, and appeals the revocation of the conditions of his pretrial release under "the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3143(a)(2) and 3145(b)," the Court should reinstate Ramos' conditions of release. Because the Court concludes that Ramos plead guilty to a crime making mandatory the revocation of his pretrial release unless there are extraordinary circumstances, and because there are no extraordinary circumstances present, the Court will deny the Appeal and will not reinstate Ramos' conditions of release.
On September 16, 2016, Ramos pleaded guilty to these facts:
On October 15, 2015, I, EVERET REA RAMOS, was driving a car in Bernalillo County, in the District of New Mexico, that had over 500 grams of methamphetamine hidden in it. I knew the methamphetamine was there, and I had control over it, and I intended to distribute it to at least one other person.
Plea Agreement at 4, filed September 16, 2016 (Doc. 61)("Plea Agreement"). The Court has also issued, in Ramos' case, a Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed July 11, 2016 (Doc. 44)("MOO"). The Court will adopt and provide the factual background contained in its MOO for the purposes of the factual background related to Ramos' crime. Those facts are as follows. See MOO at 1-25.
1. New Mexico State Police Officer Joshua Campos currently serves on the New Mexico State Police's Criminal Enforcement Unit. See Transcript of Hearing at 4:9-12 (Campos)(taken May 25, 2016)("Tr.").1
2. The Criminal Enforcement Unit is a "K-9 unit," meaning that Campos is trained to use a dog. Tr. at 4:15-16 (Campos).
3. As part of this unit, Campos received additional training, including a specialty course on highway interdiction. See Tr. at 5:15-21 (Campos).
4. He tries to attend various highway interdiction trainings "at least once a year." Tr. at 6:5-6 (Campos).
5. At those classes, he learns traffic stop techniques, different trends for smuggling narcotics, tools that traffickers use to avoid detection, and recent federal case law regarding traffic stops. See Tr. at 6:9-22 (Campos, Mysliwiec).
6. Campos has also been trained as a Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN") Inspector, so he can better determine whether vehicles have been tampered with, and whether a car is stolen. See Tr. at 107:22-25 (Campos).
7. At the VIN training, Campos learned about a VIN's characteristics, how to identify when a certain car make or model should have a longer VIN, where "hidden VINs can be located" if an officer is unable to verify a VIN from the dashboard or the doorjamb, and how to identify if a VIN has been replaced. Tr. at 108:5-110:11 (Campos, Mysliwiec).
8. As part of Campos' normal citation writing and traffic stop process, Campos checks a vehicle's VIN so he can ensure that the vehicle was not stolen. See Tr. at 20:19-21:2 (Campos, Mysliwiec).
9. State police officers are not trained to check VINs and a vehicle's VIN is not on the citation form. See Tr. at 106:12-107:2 (Campos, Pori).
10. Even though state police officers do not always check the VIN, the Criminal Enforcement Unit officers, who perform highway drug interdictions, routinely compare both of a vehicle's VINs during traffic stops, because either or both VINs might reveal tampering or other evidence of crime. See Tr. at 18:13-19:18 (Campos, Mysliwiec); id. at 112:2-5 (Campos).
11. Checking the VIN ensures that the officer writes the correct ticket for the correct driver and the correct car in every traffic stop. See Tr. at 104:24-105:2 (Campos, Mysliwiec).
12. Although the Court does not have extensive evidence of how long an individual VIN inspection usually takes, the Court does not believe that Campos needed one minute and twenty-six seconds to inspect this particular VIN, when it took him only six to eight seconds to inspect the dashboard VIN and he did not write down any numbers to use as comparison. See Tr. at 23:5-10 (Campos, Mysliwiec); id. 65:4-8 (Campos)( that, to adequately check whether anyone has tampered with the VIN, Campos needed to check each of the rivets on the dash and the stamp on the door, as well as all of the letters and numbers in the VIN); id. at 67:15-22 (Campos)( that he did not write anything down and he did not remember how hecompared the two VINs, but maintaining that he did compare the VINs).
13. The Court acknowledges, however, that Campos may have spent some time trying to locate the VIN on the rental agreement so he "could compare it to their contract to make sure that vehicle actually belonged to the contract that they had." Tr. at 73:7-21 (Campos, Pori).
14. On October 14, 2015, Ramos rented a Mercedes G-300 Sedan in southern California. See Tr. at 14:18 (Campos).
15. At about 8:40 a.m. on October 15, 2015, Campos saw the Mercedes speeding on Interstate 40, west of the Route 66 hotel and casino, near mile marker 134, outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico. See Tr. at 8:6-8 (Campos); id. at 11:8-24 (Campos, Mysliwiec).
16. Campos would later learn that the driver was Ramos and that a female passenger was Laura Perez, Ramos' wife at the time. See Tr. at 24:7-9 (Campos).
17. Before initiating the traffic stop, Campos spoke with the Albuquerque area State Police dispatcher and provided her with the Mercedes' license plate number. See Tr. at 11:11-16 (Campos).
18. In response, the dispatcher told Campos that the vehicle was "negative on any wants or warrants." Tr. at 60:7-10 (Campos).
19. Campos thus knew from the conversation with his dispatcher that there were no warrants associated with the Mercedes' license plate and that the Mercedes had not been reported stolen. See Tr. at 11:11-16 (Campos).
20. Campos stopped the Mercedes for speeding. See Tr. at 11:11-16 (Campos).
21. Campos drove a marked police car and was dressed in a uniform. See Tr. at 7:20-25 (Campos).
22. When the Mercedes came to a stop, Campos approached the Mercedes from the passenger side, as is standard for officer safety reasons, and observed that there was one male in the driver's seat and one female in the front passenger's seat. See Tr. at 12:9-13 (Campos).
23. Campos' vehicle was equipped with a dashboard camera that recorded the events. See Tr. at 43:12-18 (Campos, Pori); State Police Dashboard Cam of Stop (October 15, 2015)("Dashboard Cam").
24. From the Dashboard Cam, the Court can observe Campos, Ramos, and Perez when they are near the Mercedes and in front of the patrol car.
25. The Court can hear all of Campos' statements clearly, and it can hear most, but not all, of Ramos' and Perez' statements clearly.
26. Campos identified himself as a police officer, advised Ramos of the reasons for the stop, and then asked Ramos for his driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. See Tr. at 12:9-19 (Campos, Mysliwiec); Dashboard Cam at 8:41:35-46.
27. In response, Ramos protested that he did not believe that he was speeding, but then produced the requested data. See Tr. at 12:15-19 (Campos); Dashboard Cam at 8:41:45-52.
28. After Ramos gave Campos his driver's license and the rental agreement for the Mercedes, Campos asked Ramos to exit the vehicle and meet Campos at the front of Campos's patrol car, which is standard procedure for the New Mexico State Police and for Campos in every traffic stop, for officer safety reasons and for other reasons. See Tr. at 12:15-14:12 (Campos, Mysliwiec); Dashboard Cam at 8:42:8-12.
29. Ramos complied with the request. See Tr. at 14:13-14 (Campos, Mysliwiec); Dashboard Cam at 8:42:12-23. 30. Campos then provided the State Police dispatcher with Ramos' California driver's license information. See Tr. at 14:21-25 (Campos); Dashboard Cam at 8:42:40-43:35.
31. The dispatcher confirmed that Ramos had a valid driver's license. See Dashboard Cam at 8:43:36-44; Tr. at 14:21-25 (Campos).
32. Campos noticed that the rental agreement allowed Ramos to drive the vehicle "ONLY" in California, Nevada, and Arizona. See Tr. at 28:15-29:3 (Campos, Mysliwiec); Dashboard Cam at 8:55:30-8:55:40; Enterprise Rental Agreement (Defendant's Exhibit B, introduced at the hearing).
33. While Campos was retrieving his citation book and starting to write the citation, Ramos asked Campos a question and engaged him in a brief conversation. See Dashboard Cam at 8:43:45-8:44:22; Tr. at 96:11-16 (Campos).
34. As he was filling out the form, Campos asked Ramos several questions about his travel plans, including: (i) what brought Ramos to New Mexico; (ii) if Albuquerque was his ultimate destination; (iii) what he was planning to do in Albuquerque; (iv) what time he left his last stop; (v) if he was planning on staying in Albuquerque; and (vi) how long he rented the car. See Dashboard Cam at 8:44:32-48:09; Tr. at 17:2-3 (Campos)(asserting that Campos asked these questions while he wrote the citation).
35. Ramos answered each of Campos' questions and engaged Campos in further conversation. See Dashboard Cam at 8:44:32-48:09.
36. In response to one of Campos' questions, Ramos stated that he and his wife travelled from California to Las Vegas to Albuquerque, and were in Albuquerque to see the sights. See Tr. at 17:22-25 (Campos); Dashboard Cam at 8:44:50-55; id. at 8:45:50-46:05.
37. Ramos stated that, after seeing Albuquerque, they were heading to San...
To continue reading
Request your trial