USA V. MARIO BUENROSTRO-LOPEZ, No. 18-50273 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-50273 D.C. No. 3:17-CR-03825-JAH-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MARIO ALBERTO BUENROSTROLOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge. Mario Alberto Buenrostro-Lopez (“Buenrostro”) was convicted of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He was arrested after a U.S. * 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Border Patrol agent stopped the vehicle in which he was traveling near the U.S.Mexico border. During the stop, Buenrostro confessed to being in the country illegally. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the stop for lack of reasonable suspicion. We affirm, holding that Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The court reviews reasonable suspicion determinations de novo. United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2018). Border Patrol agents may perform “brief investigatory stops” if supported by a “reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot.” Id. at 999 (citation omitted). “Reasonable suspicion is defined as a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of a criminal activity.” Id. at 999–1000 (citation and quotation omitted). When evaluating investigatory stops near the border, the Court considers “the totality of the circumstances,” which “‘may include characteristics of the area, proximity to the border, usual patterns of traffic and time of day, previous alien or drug smuggling in the area, behavior of the driver, appearance or behavior of passengers, and the model and appearance of the vehicle.’” Id. at 1000 (quoting United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)). Courts are not to “divorc[e] factors from their context” and “the facts must be filtered through the lens of the agents’ training and experience.” Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 2 1079 (citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884–85 (1975)). In making the stop, the Border Patrol agent relied on a call-in tip from a local security guard who witnessed a vehicle picking up an individual from the brush, the location and matching appearance of the vehicle, the erratic driving of the vehicle, and the suspicious placement of sun visors on the vehicle’s dark-tinted windows. Telephone tips may serve as the basis for establishing reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop if they evince “sufficient indicia of reliability.” United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Here, several factors contribute to the call’s reliability: a security guard called into Border Patrol, gave a first-hand account of a potential illegal-alien pickup in an area known for such activity, and then called back to provide his contact information. Additionally, the short timespan between the tipster’s report and stop, the agent’s confirmation of the various details of the truck, the driver’s behavior, and the sun visor placement further support the reasonableness of the stop. AFFIRMED. 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.
