United States v. Romero-Vega
| Decision Date | 06 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-CR-4223 MCA,14-CR-4223 MCA |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PEDRO ROMERO-VEGA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Memorandum in Support Thereof, filed December 22, 2014. (Doc. 16.) By Order of Reference filed January 7, 2015 (Doc. 25), this matter was referred to the undersigned to conduct hearings as warranted, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend an ultimate disposition of the case. In his motion to suppress, Defendant asks the Court to suppress "all evidence, including his fingerprints and identity, obtained as a result of his illegal arrest" on October 28, 2014. (Doc. 23 at 6.) The Court, having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant law, having heard the evidence and argument presented by counsel at a hearing on January 26, 2015, and being otherwise fully advised, concludes that Defendant's motion to suppress is well taken and recommends that it be GRANTED.
On October 28, 2014, Defendant Pedro Romero-Vega was passing through Albuquerque, New Mexico on an Amtrak train from Los Angeles, California. While the train was stopped in Albuquerque, United States Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") Agent Jarrell Perry arrested Defendant for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine,although he has not been charged with this offense. After his arrest, Defendant was fingerprinted, and Agent Perry obtained evidence of his identity and of his alleged previous removal from the United States. Defendant now faces charges of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In his motion to suppress, Defendant contends that Agent Perry arrested him without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that all evidence obtained as a result of the arrest, including evidence of his fingerprints and identity, should be suppressed.
The Court proposes the following findings of fact, based on the evidence presented at the January 26, 2015 hearing on this matter:
1. On or about October 28, 2014, while reviewing Amtrak passenger name records, Agent Perry became aware of two Amtrak reservations. (Hrg. Rec. at 0:23.1) The first was for Kevin Carrillo2 and Stephany Torres, one-way from Fullerton, California to Orlando, Florida, reserved in person on October 21, 2014 at 3:29 p.m. for $1,988 in cash and picked up at 3:11 p.m. the following day in Los Angeles. (Id. at 0:24.) The second was for Miguel Rodriguez-Mesa and Taira Camacho, one-way from Fullerton to Orlando, reserved on October 21, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. and paid for in $1,988 cash at 3:11 p.m. the following day in Los Angeles. (Id. at 0:24-25.) The respective reservations were for two different sleeper rooms and two different train cars. (Id. at 0:25.) According to the records Agent Perry reviewed, both couples boarded the train in Fullerton at 7:46 p.m. on October 27, 2014. (Id. at 0:24, 0:26.)
2. Agent Perry claimed that, before he went to the train station on October 28, 2014, he had information that a Stephany Torres was "believed to be" transporting methamphetamine from California to Orlando. (Id. at 1:11.) No reasonable officer could have relied on this information. Agent Perry did not provide any information about its source or whether it was trustworthy to any degree. (Id. at 1:11-12.) Also, beyond noting that they had the same name, he did not take any steps to determine whether the Stephany Torres allegedly suspected of transporting methamphetamine and the Stephany Torres traveling on the train were the same person, for example by comparing dates of birth. (Id.) Agent Perry was apparently aware of the information's unreliability, because he did not include it in his report. (Id.)
3. Agent Perry did not have any information about Defendant, Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa, or Ms. Camacho before he went to the train station on October 28, 2014, other than the information in the Amtrak passenger name records. (Id. at 1:10, 1:12-13.)
4. Agent Perry has reviewed hundreds of Amtrak reservations. (Id. at 0:26.) He testified that it is not unusual to travel from California to Orlando; that there is an Amtrak route from Fullerton to Orlando; that in his experience, Orlando "is not a big destination" for people traveling from California on the train; and, that he recalls fewer than five such reservations but "there may have been other ones." (Id. at 0:26-27, 1:20.)
5. After reviewing the reservations discussed above, Agent Perry went to the Amtrak station in Albuquerque on October 28, 2014. (Id. at 1:13.) Kevin Small accompanied Agent Perry to the station. (Id.) Mr. Small used to be a DEA agent but has retired, and now works for a DEA contractor as a financial investigator. (Id. at 0:10, 0:14.) He is not a law enforcement officer. (Id. at 0:11.) Agent Perry referred to Mr. Small as his "partner" during his encounters with Defendant, Ms. Torres, Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa, and Ms. Camacho. (Id. at 0:18.)
6. Agent Perry sent Mr. Small to the sleeper room assigned to Defendant and Ms. Torres. (Id. at 0:28, 1:13.) At the room, Mr. Small spoke to a car attendant, whose name he does not remember. (Id. at 0:14, 0:18.) She told Mr. Small that she had moved Defendant and Ms. Torres to a room next to Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa's and Ms. Camacho's room, and that the two couples were traveling together. (Id. at 0:14-15.) Mr. Small conveyed this information to Agent Perry. (Id. at 0:29.)
7. Agent Perry then made contact with Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa and Ms. Camacho. (Id. at 0:30.) During the ensuing conversation, Ms. Camacho told Agent Perry that she and Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa were traveling with a male and a female, whom she did not identify by name. (Id. at 0:31-33.)
8. Agent Perry obtained permission to search Ms. Camacho's and Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa's luggage. (Id. at 0:31.) While Agent Perry was conducting this search, Defendant approached the room across the hall. (Id. at 0:33-34.) Agent Perry greeted Defendant and asked him if he was "traveling with them," apparently referring to Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa and Ms. Camacho. (Id. at 0:45-46.) Defendant responded, "no, we're over here."3 (Id.) Defendant's answer indicates that Defendant understood Agent Perry to be asking if he and Ms. Torres were traveling in the same room with Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa and Ms. Camacho.
9. Agent Perry then asked Defendant if he spoke English, to which Defendant responded, "uh yeah?" (Id. at 0:46.) Defendant's accent and syntax throughout Agent Perry's recording of the investigation4 make it apparent that English is not Defendant's primary language.
10. While searching the luggage in Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa's and Ms. Camacho's room, Agent Perry found a clear plastic bundle concealed in a glued compartment of a laptop case Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa gave him. (Id. at 0:31-32.) The bundle was later determined to contain methamphetamine. (Id.) Agent Perry placed Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa and Ms. Camacho under arrest and put them in a room down the hall. (Id. at 0:33.)
11. Agent Perry then approached Defendant and Ms. Torres and asked, "I assume you're all in the same room you're traveling together?" (Id. at 0:51.) Defendant responded, "say what?" (Id.) Agent Perry then asked, "you're in the same room, are y'all traveling together?" (Id.) By asking the question in this manner, Agent Perry reinforced Defendant's understanding that, when Agent Perry said "traveling together," he meant traveling together in the same room. Defendant responded, "oh yeah we are traveling together." (Id.)
12. Agent Perry asked for, and Defendant and Ms. Torres provided, their train tickets. (Id. at 0:34.) While reviewing the tickets, Agent Perry read the name "Miguel Rodriguez" from an attached receipt, and asked Defendant if that was his name. (Id. at 0:35, 0:51.) Defendant responded, "no, that's not me," and pointed to the name under which he was traveling. (Id.; id. at 1:09.) Thus, Defendant knew that Agent Perry had seen his and Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa's names on the same receipt, and had no reason or ability to conceal this fact.
13. Agent Perry asked a number of questions about Defendant's and Ms. Torres' travel plans, which Defendant and Ms. Torres answered. (Id. at 0:35-0:57.) At times, Agent Perry and Defendant had some difficulty understanding one another. (Id.) For example, Agent Perry asked where he and Ms. Torres were "traveling to today," meaning their ultimate destination, and Defendant responded "Chicago," which was where Defendant had been told they would have to wait for several hours before continuing on to Orlando. (Id. at 0:50-51.)
14. In response to Agent Perry's questions, Defendant explained that he and Ms. Torres were traveling to Orlando to pick up a car belonging to Ms. Torres, which they would then drive back to California. (Id. at 0:56.)
15. Agent Perry asked Defendant and Ms. Torres if they were traveling with anyone else, to which Defendant responded, "no, we're not." (Id. at 0:35, 0:56-57.) Later, Agent Perry stated, "you told me you guys aren't traveling with anybody else, you're by yourselves?" (Id. at 1:00.) Defendant's response to these statements, if any, is inaudible. (Id.)
16. Agent Perry conceded that he did not know what was in Defendant's mind when he responded to Agent Perry's questions regarding whether he and Ms. Torres were "traveling with" anyone else, and specifically did not know whether Defendant understood him to mean traveling in the same room with anyone else. (Id. at 1:24-25, 1:29.) Agent Perry did not ask Defendant if he knew Mr. Rodriguez-Mesa and Ms. Camacho, if they had made their reservations together, and/or if they were going to the same destination.5 (Id. at 1:24-25, 1:29.)
17. Defendant and Ms. Torres gave Agent Perry permission to search their room and luggage. (Id. at 1:26.) Agent Perry did not locate any...
To continue reading
Request your trial