US v. Gutierrez-Guajardo, Crim. No. L-88-510.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1988
• Docket Number: Crim. No. L-88-510.
• Citation: 699 F. Supp. 608
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Raul GUTIERREZ-GUAJARDO, Jorge Gonzalez.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

699 F. Supp. 608

UNITED STATES of America v. Raul GUTIERREZ-GUAJARDO, Jorge Gonzalez.

Crim. No. L-88-510.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division.

November 7, 1988.

Carlos Martinez, U.S. Atty., for U.S.

Sharon Trigo, Laredo, Tex., for Jorge Gonzalez.

Gustavo Acevedo, Laredo, Tex., for Raul Gutierrez-Guajardo.

ORDER

KAZEN, District Judge.

Both Defendants have filed motions to suppress evidence. An evidentiary hearing on these motions was conducted on November 3, 1988.

These two Defendants were passengers in a blue and white pickup truck stopped by police officers in the northern part of the City of Laredo on September 21, 1988. The Court concludes that the initial stop of the vehicle was an investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The officers had received a tip from an anonymous informant whose voice was recognized as a person who had given reliable information on several previous occasions. While the informant's description of the suspect vehicle was somewhat general, the agents located a vehicle fitting that description at a location within two blocks of the spot predicted by the informant. The subsequent erratic driving by the vehicle did justify an investigative stop. In that sense, the Government's reliance on United States v. Martinez, 808 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir.1987) is well placed.

No contraband was found at the time of the stop. In this regard, the informant's tip was erroneous. The only evidence discovered at the time of the stop was a piece of paper later determined to be a receipt issued by the United Parcel Service. This receipt was lying on the ground outside the truck at the time it was picked up by one of the officers. Officer Viera claims that Defendant Gutierrez tossed it to the ground but Gutierrez has sworn under oath that this is not true. He has denied that the receipt was taken off of his person, makes no claim of ownership or right to the receipt, and denies that it was ever in his possession. Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that Gutierrez has no standing to urge suppression of this receipt. No privacy right of his was affected. In fact, his motion to suppress makes no express reference to the receipt.

Similarly there is no basis for Defendant Gonzalez to challenge the discovery of this receipt. In support of his motion to suppress, Gonzalez has filed a memorandum which is somewhat confusing. At one point he concedes that the Defendant "might not have standing" under the "traditional analysis" of determining whether the defendant had "a legitimate expectation of privacy in the discarded paper." He then expresses the "opinion" that he nevertheless has standing to object because he was "arrested before the recovery of the tainted evidence." As best as this Court can understand it, Gonzalez is arguing that if he was illegally arrested, all evidence obtained from that point onward should be suppressed regardless of whether any privacy right of the Defendant was invaded. This is not the law. Like Gutierrez, Gonzalez makes absolutely no claim to the discarded receipt. It was not taken from him and he makes no claim of right or ownership to it. In fact, unlike Gutierrez, the Government offers no evidence that the receipt was ever in Gonzalez' possession....