Category Archives: Fourth Amendment-Border Search

U.S. v. Valdes-Vega, 685 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2012)

Posted on by
Reply

In any business or profession, including law enforcement, people gain an intuition of certain conduct in the environment unknown to the average person.  Border Patrol agents qualify in this role in detaining or arresting individuals based on patterns of conduct they observe or confront.  Smuggling routes are  identified, transportation of drug practices become familiar, and conduct seemingly innocent to the inexperienced becomes relevant.  In Vega, exactly that scenario occurred.

Border Patrol officers observed a small truck driving on the freeeway inside the United States in excess of the normal traffic speed, weaving in and out of traffic, slowly approaching a closed checkpoint in a known smuggling corridor. The checkpoint was closed, and the driver resumed irregular driving and excessive speed.  According to the agent, the truck resembled other vehicles shaped to conceal contraband and it displayed Baja California license plates.  The officer stopped the truck and a subsequent search revealed drugs.

The average person reading this fact pattern would assume only a series of traffic violations (Border Patrol Agents lack  authority to stop cars for traffic violations).  Weaving in and out of traffic enables the driver to escape the view of any vehicle following it.  The condition of the truck was comparable to other vehicles carrying drugs obscuring vision of the passengers or contents of the vehicle.  Yet the officers, both veterans, could intuit from experience their conclusion the truck contained contraband.  How? Intuition- that proved to be confirmed.

Of course the 9th  Circuit in a 2-1 opinion saw it only as traffic violations and Vega will avoid trial.  Officers who work in specialized areas cannot always articulate the reason for their suspicions but what is it about this case which confirmed their judgment? When an officer observes conduct he believes consistent with the commission of crime but superficially innocent to the untrained person what is he supposed to do? The requirement of the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary rule is deterrence of police misconduct.  What misconduct occurred in this case?

The Supreme Court has reversed the 9th Circuit so often in U.S. border cases that Vega should be added to the list.

Time for another rehearing en banc.

U.S. v. Valdes-Vega, 685 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2012)

Posted on by
Reply
In a 2-1 opinion a 9th Circuit panel ordered the release of a Mexican national who possessed 5 kilos of cocaine.  This opinion is another example of judicial naivete by certain judges.  In cases requiring experience as a law enforcement agent, particularly in border searches, the officer’s ability to identify evidence of narcotics is ignored by appellate judges, as noted by the minority judge in this case.A border agent observed defendant driving 90 mph in traffic moving at 70-80 mph.   The agent described an extremely erratic driving pattern, the driver weaving in and out of traffic. The truck, not designed for speed, raced through a closed checkpoint.  The driver operated a large truck with the ability to conceal illegal aliens and narcotics in an area of frequent smuggling.  The agent testified a truck is frequently used for concealment. As the dissent points out, the majority slices all the testimony individually and concludes none lead to a reason to stop the vehicle.  In fact, the officer’s experience led to the discovery of narcotics.Every Fourth  Amendment case is subject to a different perspective.  But the 9th Circuit rarely affirms the officer’s experience or else discounts the testimony.  The result is a glut of reversals by the Supreme Court, and the 9th Circuit leads all the other Circuits.  Every year. During this term, the Justices reversed the 9th Circuit 17 out of 24 cases. This case will add to the total when either reheard en banc or the Supreme Court grants cert.