Opinion
No. 17-50296
02-21-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRES SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02192-MMA-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 7, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Andres Soto appeals his conviction for thirteen counts of transportation of certain aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(II) and (a)(1)(B)(i). He argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress all evidence derived from a traffic stop, vehicle search, and questioning by law enforcement officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court correctly concluded that California Highway Patrol Officer Carlos Davila had reasonable suspicion to seize Soto for the purposes of an investigative stop. The district court properly found that Soto was not seized until Officer Davila activated the police lights on his vehicle. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). We reject Soto's argument that "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave" at the moment Officer Davila pulled onto the shoulder of the road behind Soto's stopped vehicle. Id. When Officer Davila activated his vehicle's lights, he saw that the refrigeration unit on Soto's vehicle was on even though there was no seal or lock on the vehicle's back doors, which gave rise to a particularized suspicion that the tractor-trailer was not carrying produce, but some type of contraband. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). The district court properly deemed Officer Davila's testimony credible. See Atwood v. Ryan, 870 F.3d 1033, 1061 n.25 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (appellate courts owe the district court's credibility findings deference on appeal).
2. The district court correctly concluded that Imperial County Sheriff's Deputy Randy McCoy had probable cause to search Soto's vehicle. The district court properly credited Deputy McCoy's testimony that he conducted the visual search of the vehicle after he learned about the multiple footprints on the foot rail leading into the vehicle, the unsealed refrigerated trailer, Soto's claim that he was carrying spinach, and the information from the tip. Under the collective knowledge doctrine, Deputy McCoy also knew that Soto did not have the necessary commercial license to be driving a tractor-trailer or the proper shipping papers to carry a load of spinach. United States v. Ramirez, 473 F.3d 1026, 1032 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that probable cause turns on "the collective knowledge of all the officers involved" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, there was a "fair probability" that a search of the truck would reveal contraband. United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 484 (9th Cir. 1989).
3. Because Soto was not subject to custodial interrogation, the officers were not required to provide Soto with Miranda warnings. See Stanley v. Schriro, 598 F.3d 612, 618 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court did not clearly err by finding that Soto was not in custody during the traffic stop. Under United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 519-20 (9th Cir. 2009) and United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001), the traffic stop did not become custodial because a Border Patrol agent told Soto "not to leave." The district court correctly weighed the evidence that Deputy McCoy told Soto that he was not under arrest, the stop took place in public on the shoulder of a busy road, none of the officers used threatening language, physical force, or drew their weapons, and Soto was not "confronted with evidence of guilt." United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that, based on the evidence, Soto was not subject to a custodial interrogation.
AFFIRMED.