Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 872 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1989)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jose ALVARADO-GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-5129.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  March 23, 1989.Decided April 12, 1989.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, FARRIS and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Jose Alvarado-Gonzales appeals his conviction, following a conditional guilty plea, of two counts of aiding and abetting the transportation of illegal aliens. Alvarado-Gonzales claims the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence. He claims that the government lacked founded suspicion to justify stopping the truck in which he was riding. We affirm.

We review de novo the district court's finding of founded suspicion. United States v. Thomas, 844 F.2d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1988). Government agents may stop a vehicle and question its occupants if the officers have a reasonably founded suspicion that undocumented aliens are being transported. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). An officer's suspicion is reasonable if it is based on "specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts." United States v. Brignoni Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975).

Border Patrol agent Arellano had reasonably founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify stopping the truck. The truck was parked in a remote area close to the Mexican border where numerous illegal aliens had been apprehended. When Arellano approached the truck, he saw Alvarado-Gonzales run around the back of the truck and jump into the passenger seat. The truck then drove off at high speed. As the truck passed Arellano, the driver appeared nervous.

Based on his knowledge and his observations of the truck and of the demeanor of Alvarado-Gonzales and the driver, Arellano had reasonably founded suspicion. The stop was permissible.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.