United States of America v. Andres Soto

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANDRES SOTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50296
D.C. No.
3:16-cr-02192-MMA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,*** District Judge.
Andres Soto appeals his conviction for thirteen counts of transportation of
certain aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(II) and (a)(1)(B)(i).
* 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 Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
He argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress all
evidence derived from a traffic stop, vehicle search, and questioning by law
enforcement officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
1. The district court correctly concluded that California Highway Patrol
Officer Carlos Davila had reasonable suspicion to seize Soto for the purposes of an
investigative stop. The district court properly found that Soto was not seized until
Officer Davila activated the police lights on his vehicle. See United States v.
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). We reject Soto’s argument that “a
reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave” at the
moment Officer Davila pulled onto the shoulder of the road behind Soto’s stopped
vehicle. Id. When Officer Davila activated his vehicle’s lights, he saw that the
refrigeration unit on Soto’s vehicle was on even though there was no seal or lock
on the vehicle’s back doors, which gave rise to a particularized suspicion that the
tractor-trailer was not carrying produce, but some type of contraband. See United
States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). The district court properly deemed
Officer Davila’s testimony credible. See Atwood v. Ryan, 870 F.3d 1033, 1061
n.25 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (appellate courts owe the district court’s
credibility findings deference on appeal).
2. The district court correctly concluded that Imperial County Sheriff’s

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Deputy Randy McCoy had probable cause to search Soto’s vehicle. The district
court properly credited Deputy McCoy’s testimony that he conducted the visual
search of the vehicle after he learned about the multiple footprints on the foot rail
leading into the vehicle, the unsealed refrigerated trailer, Soto’s claim that he was
carrying spinach, and the information from the tip. Under the collective
knowledge doctrine, Deputy McCoy also knew that Soto did not have the
necessary commercial license to be driving a tractor-trailer or the proper shipping
papers to carry a load of spinach. United States v. Ramirez, 473 F.3d 1026, 1032
(9th Cir. 2007) (holding that probable cause turns on “the collective knowledge of
all the officers involved” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus,
there was a “fair probability” that a search of the truck would reveal contraband.
United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 484 (9th Cir. 1989).
3. Because Soto was not subject to custodial interrogation, the officers were
not required to provide Soto with Miranda warnings. See Stanley v. Schriro, 598
F.3d 612, 618 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court did not clearly err by finding that
Soto was not in custody during the traffic stop. Under United States v. Medina-
Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 519–20 (9th Cir. 2009) and United States v. Galindo-
Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 2001), the traffic stop did not become
custodial because a Border Patrol agent told Soto “not to leave.” The district court
correctly weighed the evidence that Deputy McCoy told Soto that he was not under

-- 3 of 4 --

4
arrest, the stop took place in public on the shoulder of a busy road, none of the
officers used threatening language, physical force, or drew their weapons, and Soto
was not “confronted with evidence of guilt.” United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d
1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded
that, based on the evidence, Soto was not subject to a custodial interrogation.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --