United States of America v. Kufuo K. Wilson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KUFUO K. WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10568
D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01783-CKJ-
BGM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 17, 2016*
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In September 2013, Kufuo Wilson entered an immigration checkpoint on
Arizona State Route 80 north of Tombstone. At the checkpoint, his van passed by
a police dog trained to detect concealed people and drugs. After the dog alerted to
the van, a search revealed 115 kilograms of marijuana. Wilson appeals his
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FILED
MAY 27 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
conviction for possession with intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). We affirm.
1. Wilson moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing that use of a drug-
sniffing dog transformed the checkpoint from a lawful immigration checkpoint into
an unlawful drug interdiction. See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44
(2000). But, a lawful immigration checkpoint is not made unlawful by the addition
of a secondary purpose of drug interdiction. United States v. Soto-Camacho, 58
F.3d 408, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, that the dog was trained to detect both
drugs and concealed people does not raise an inference of illegality. Because
Wilson’s request for an evidentiary hearing was based on mere conjecture that the
government makes more drug than immigration arrests at the Tombstone
checkpoint, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. See United
States v. Wilson, 7 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 1993).
2. After Wilson’s arrest, the government sent notice to the van’s registered
owner and forfeited the van, which was sold for scrap. Wilson argues that depriving
him of the opportunity to inspect the van violated the Due Process Clause. But, he
does not claim that the van contained exculpatory evidence, only that an inspection
might have been useful. In the absence of any evidence of bad faith, Wilson’s claim
fails. See Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547–48 (2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
3. Wilson argues that the government failed to prove that he knew
marijuana was in the van or that he intended to distribute it. However, a jury could
reasonably infer Wilson’s knowledge and intent to distribute from the large quantity
of marijuana and his admission that the van smelled like marijuana. See United
States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Davila-
Escovedo, 36 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --