United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose A. Chavez-mejia, Defendant-appellant, 56 F.3d 78 (10th Cir. 1995)

Before TACHA, HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and ELLISON,²  Senior District Judge.

Defendant Jose Alfredo Chavez-Mejia appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.

Background

On February 20, 1994, defendant was stopped at a temporary Border Patrol checkpoint located at milemarker 13 on New Mexico Highway 11. The checkpoint consisted of a marked Border Patrol van, a marked chase vehicle, orange cones, flashing lights, and warning signs. The uniformed Border Patrol agents who operated the checkpoint stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint for routine questioning about the occupants' citizenship.

During the stop of defendant's vehicle, a Border Patrol agent asked for and received consent to search the vehicle. Upon discovering twenty-nine pounds of marijuana in the front fenders of the vehicle, the agent arrested defendant. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized by the Border Patrol agents. After the district court denied defendant's motion, he entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana. Defendant now appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, alleging (1) that his detention at the roadblock was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment under the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1975), and (2) that the location and operation of the roadblock was an abuse of the Border Patrol's discretion.

Standard of Review

"When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we accept the district court's factual findings and determinations of witness credibility unless they are clearly erroneous." United States v. Flores, 48 F.3d 467, 468 (10th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). We also "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's ruling." Id. "The ultimate determination of reasonableness [of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment], however, is a conclusion of law that we review de novo." United States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509, 1513-14 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1207 (1991).

Disposition

After reviewing the record, we find no clear error in the district court's factual findings. Moreover, our analysis of the applicable law convinces us that the district court analyzed the motion correctly. We therefore AFFIRM the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence for substantially the reasons articulated in the district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of which we attach to this order.