United States of America v. Alejandro Martinez-Castro

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-CASTRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50134
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01112-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
Alejandro Martinez-Castro stands convicted of illegal reentry in violation of
8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b). He appeals the district court’s refusal to
FILED
FEB 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
suppress evidence garnered from what he argues was an illegal stop. “[W]hen [a
Customs and Border Patrol] officer’s observations lead him reasonably to suspect
that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, he may
stop the car briefly and investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion.”
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975). Given the totality of
circumstances, such reasonable suspicion existed here. See United States v.
Garcia-Barron, 116 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1997).
Even if there were no reasonable suspicion, Martinez-Castro would not be
entitled to suppress the identity evidence to which he objects. See, e.g., United
States v. Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567, 577 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --