United States v. Alejandro Martinez-Castro

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50134 · 2012-02-10 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MARTINEZ-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Alex Kozinski (author), Smith, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50134 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01112-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM * ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-CASTRO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 7, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Martinez-Castro stands convicted of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b). He appeals the district court’s refusal to * 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). suppress evidence garnered from what he argues was an illegal stop. “[W]hen [a Customs and Border Patrol] officer’s observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, he may stop the car briefly and investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion.”

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975). Given the totality of circumstances, such reasonable suspicion existed here. See United States v. Garcia-Barron, 116 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1997).

Even if there were no reasonable suspicion, Martinez-Castro would not be entitled to suppress the identity evidence to which he objects. See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567, 577 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.