United States v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 28 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-cr-1040 KG |
| Citation | 569 F.Supp.3d 1129 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Alondra SANCHEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Mark A. Saltman, US Attorney's Office, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff.
Lynne Christine McMullen, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, New Mexico Las Cruces Office, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Alondra Sanchez's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (Motion), filed August 13, 2021. (Doc. 20). The United States timely responded, and Defendant timely replied. (Docs. 27 and 33). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 16, 2021. At the hearing, Assistant United States Attorneys Mark Saltman and Luke Rizzo represented the United States. Border Patrol Agents David Weems and Ramon Torres, and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Joe Zepeda testified on behalf of the United States. Assistant Federal Public Defendant Lynne McMullen represented Ms. Sanchez, who was present. The United States, with leave of this Court, filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition on September 27, 2021. (Doc. 38). And Defendant timely responded. (Doc. 40).
Ms. Sanchez is charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine based on evidence obtained during a border patrol checkpoint stop. Ms. Sanchez asks this Court to suppress physical evidence and statements based on violations of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Having considered the Motion, the substantial briefing, the evidence admitted at the hearing, the parties’ oral argument, and the relevant law, the Court grants in part Defendant's Motion to Suppress and excludes Ms. Sanchez's self-incriminating statement.
At about 2:45 pm on March 5, 2021, Alondra Sanchez rode aboard a Greyhound bus which was stopped and referred to the secondary inspection area of the United States Border Patrol (USBP) checkpoint on Highway 70 southwest of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Transcript of September 16, 2021, Motion Hearing (Doc. 37) at 9:22–10:5.1 At the checkpoint, USBP Agent David Weems conducted an immigration inspection of the bus. Tr. at 10:21–22. Though Agent Weems boarded the bus alone, at some point during the sweep Agent Ramon Torres boarded and stood at the head of the aisle by the door. Tr. at 14:1–20.
On board the bus, Agent Weems noticed Ms. Sanchez sitting in a window seat, directly next to another passenger. Tr. at 12:12–19, 16:24. This raised his suspicion given the ongoing COVID pandemic and the relative emptiness of the bus—there were only seven to ten people on board out of 60 to 80 seats. Tr. at 11:23–12:6. According to his experience and training, smugglers often travel and sit together as a precautionary measure. Tr. at 16–18; 103–104. He also noticed that Ms. Sanchez wore a baggy sweatshirt, which he took as consistent with hiding something. Tr. at 20:7.
Agent Weems asked if the two were travelling together, and they responded that they were not. Tr. at 15:3–8. Agent Weems viewed Ms. Sanchez's valid U.S. Passport Card and questioned her briefly. Tr. at 21:10–16. Ms. Sanchez said she was travelling from Juarez, Mexico to Clovis, New Mexico. Tr. at 18:5–14. She said she had no luggage with her. Tr. at 18:18–21. At that point, Agent Weems was suspicious that Ms. Sanchez may be carrying something illegal. Tr. at 24:6–12. Agent Weems was also concerned about a language barrier between them because Ms. Sanchez answered in Spanish. Tr. at 24:6–12, 53:3–7. Agent Weems gave a "follow-me" hand gesture, and maybe said "come with me," and Ms. Sanchez followed him off the bus without saying anything. Tr. at 23:14–24:4.
Standing to the side of the bus, Agent Torres questioned Ms. Sanchez in Spanish, and she repeated the answers given on the bus. Tr. at 26:3–10. Agent Weems noticed her lip quivering, and based on his suspicion, told Agent Torres to tell Ms. Sanchez they were going to get a female officer to pat her down. Tr. at 27:2–18. At no point did either Agent suspect that Ms. Sanchez was carrying a weapon or was a threat to their safety. Tr. at 84:12–13. At no point did the Agents tell Ms. Sanchez she was free to go nor did they ask her permission to talk to her or to search her. Tr. at 81:2–15. Instead, Agent Torres told Ms. Sanchez they were going to escort her inside and a female officer would search her. Tr. at 74:23–75:3. Ms. Sanchez then admitted she was carrying something under her sweatshirt. Tr. at 28:14–17. Up to this point, about ten total minutes had passed since the bus entered the inspection area. Tr. at 44:13, 48:11.
Based on that statement, the Agents escorted Ms. Sanchez inside the checkpoint building and conducted a search of her body. Tr. at 28–30. Ms. Sanchez revealed a girdle around her abdomen and Agent Weems removed a package from it. Tr. at 30:2–19. Agent Weems’ dog alerted to the contents, which he then removed and which field tested positive as methamphetamine. Tr. at 31:3–25. The Agents placed Ms. Sanchez under arrest and read her Miranda rights; she invoked her right to remain silent. Tr. at 32:9–20.
Later, DEA Special Agents Joe Zepeda and Lorenzo Trevizo arrived and again advised Ms. Sanchez of her Miranda rights. Tr. at 87–89. She again invoked her right to remain silent. Tr. at 89:8–10. The DEA Agents took custody of Ms. Sanchez and the drug evidence, which later lab tested as containing both methamphetamine and cocaine. Tr. at 89:11–90:12.
When evaluating the evidence on a motion to suppress, the "district court must assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to give to the evidence presented" and "the inferences the district court draws from that evidence and testimony are entirely within its discretion." United States v. Goebel , 959 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir. 2020) (); see also United States v. Torres , 987 F.3d 893, 899 (10th Cir. 2021) (). The burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164, 177 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). That burden is borne first by the movant to show a violation of a constitutional right, then by the government to show its behavior reasonable or that consent was validly given. Goebel , 959 F.3d at 1265 ; United States v. Shrum , 908 F.3d 1219, 1229 (10th Cir. 2018) ; United States v. Ringold , 335 F.3d 1168, 1171 (10th Cir. 2003).
This case presents myriad constitutional questions. While the Court addresses each of the issues raised by the Ms. Sanchez, it concludes the involuntariness of her admission is determinative. Because the Court concludes Defendant's statement that she was carrying something under her sweatshirt was tainted by the announced, and would-be-unlawful, pat down of her body, it holds the admission was coerced. The Court, therefore, suppresses the statement for being obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Ms. Sanchez challenges her detention at multiple points. She argues first that the questioning aboard the bus exceeded the Agents’ authority; and second, that the detention off the bus was supported by neither consent to be seized nor reasonable suspicion. (Doc. 20) at 2–8. The Court concludes that Ms. Sanchez was at no time seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
A stop at a border checkpoint is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, though it is a permitted one. United States v. Rascon-Ortiz , 994 F.2d 749, 752 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Martinez–Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543, 556, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) ). The Constitution operates on border patrol checkpoints by limiting the scope of the detention. Id. (citing Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. at 566–67, 96 S.Ct. 3074 ). A routine stop must be brief and unintrusive. Id. (citing Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. at 556, 96 S.Ct. 3074 ). Where suspicious circumstances arise, a border patrol agent may ask a few additional questions concerning the suspicion during a routine inspection. Id.
The rules for busses are no different. When a bus enters the checkpoint and is referred to the secondary inspection location, border patrol agents are permitted to board the bus, question its passengers regarding citizenship and immigration status, make a brief visual inspection of their surroundings, and question the passengers regarding suspicious circumstances. United States v. Hernandez , 7 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 1993).
The Court determines the initial questioning on the bus was lawful. The Fourth Amendment permitted the Agents to direct the bus into secondary inspection and authorized them to question passengers about their immigration status. Agent Weems then had the requisite individual suspicion to ask Ms. Sanchez a few follow-up questions about her travel plans and luggage without the interaction becoming an unlawful seizure.
When Ms. Sanchez was asked off the bus, the scope of the detention changed, and so did the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment. Any detention beyond a routine inspection, including removing a passenger from a bus, must be based on consent, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez , 222 F. Appx. 784, 787 (10th Cir. 2007) ; Rascon-Ortiz , 994 F.2d at 753.
Here, the Agents briefly detained Ms. Sanchez because they developed a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. To determine whether an investigatory stop is supported by reasonable suspicion, the court "must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing." United States v. Karam , 496 F.3d 1157, 1162 (10th Cir. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial