United States of America v. Eric Wesley Mason

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. ¶. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S.***
District Court for Western Michigan, Grand Rapids, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC WESLEY MASON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50070
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02793-JLS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
FEB 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Defendant Eric Mason appeals from an order of the district court denying his
motion to suppress evidence obtained in the course of a Border Patrol stop along
Interstate 8. Mason argues that at his suppression hearing, the district court
improperly considered the testimony of Agent Herbert Rosette concerning the
frequency of alien smuggling along Interstate 8.
We have previously held that police officers may consider the frequency of a
road’s use as an alien smuggling route in determining whether reasonable
suspicion exists to justify a traffic stop. United States v. Palos-Marquez, 591 F.3d
1272, 1277 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he notoriety of a road as an alien smuggling route
has long been held by numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, as a relevant
factor supporting reasonable suspicion.” (citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U.S. 873, 884–85)). However, the frequent use of a road by alien smugglers is
not, on its own, sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion. United States v.
Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] location or route
frequented by illegal immigrants, but also by many legal residents, is not
significantly probative to an assessment of reasonable suspicion.”).
Here, the district court concluded that Agent Rosette’s stop was justified by
at least eight facts: (1) a truck driver’s gesture directing Agent Rosette’s attention
to Mason’s vehicle, (2) the fact that the car “was a junker,” (3) Agent Rosette’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
observation that the vehicle was riding low, (4) Mason’s failure to turn off his right
turn signal, (5) Mason’s nervous demeanor after noticing Agent Rosette, (6) the
car’s expired registration, (7) Agent Rosette’s observation of two heads popping up
from the back seat of the car, and (8) Interstate 8’s popularity as an alien
smuggling venue.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that, considering the totality of
these circumstances, Agent Rosette’s actions were supported by a reasonable
suspicion that Mason was engaged in criminal activity. See Palos-Marquez, 591
F.3d at 1274–75.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --