USA v. Ward et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nicholas Roosevelt Ward,
Defendant.
No. CR-25-01229-001-TUC-JGZ (BGM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant Nicholas Ward’s Motion to Suppress Evidence.
(Doc. 54.) Under Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, this matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald for an evidentiary hearing and a report and
recommendation. (Doc. 38 at 2.) After reviewing the parties’ briefs and conducting an
evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge, after her
independent review, deny Ward’s motion to suppress evidence.
BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2025, Border Patrol Agent Jack Gamblin was performing patrol
duties in the Brian A. Terry Station area of responsibility. (Doc. 54 at 2.) At approximately
4:10 p.m., Agent Gamblin received information that the Sonoita Border Patrol Station was
monitoring a suspected alien load vehicle. (Id.) The information relayed to Agent Gamblin
was that a white 2024 Nissan Rogue bearing California license plate number 9MBE647
was observed traveling in and out of multiple canyons within the Coronado National
Memorial Park, approximately three miles from the United States - Mexico border. (Id.)
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 7

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
An area known by Agent Gamblin to be used by smugglers to pick up illegal aliens. (Id.)
Forty minutes later, in the area of South Coronado Memorial Road near State Route
92, Agent Gamblin initiated a traffic stop of a white Nissan Pathfinder bearing California
license plate number 9MBE647. (Id.) Subsequent to the traffic stop, Defendant Nicholas
Ward was found to be the driver of the white Pathfinder, and his co-Defendant was the
front seat passenger. (Id.) Four additional passengers were located in the rear of the vehicle
and were found to be in the United States illegally. (Id.)
FACTUAL FINDINGS1
Evidentiary Hearing
On January 6, 2026, the Court held an evidentiary suppression hearing. (Doc. 62.)
At the hearing, United States Border Patrol Agent Jack Gamblin testified on behalf of the
Government, (see Doc. 64 at 12-42), and Investigator Raymond Duron testified on behalf
of Defendant Ward, (see id. at 44-68).
1. Agent Gamblin
Agent Jack Gamblin has been employed with the Border Patrol since April 2018.
(Doc. 64 at 12:14-17.) Prior to working for the Border Patrol, Gamblin was a United States
Marine for four years. (Id. 12:23-13:1.) Gamblin has been stationed at the Brian A. Terry
Border Patrol Station near Naco, Arizona, for nearly all of his tenure. (Id. 13:7-9.) The
station’s area of responsibility (AOR) spans from Douglas, Arizona, to Sonoita, Arizona,
and includes the Coronado National Memorial Park. (Id. 13:11-14.) The AOR abuts the
international border between the United States and Mexico, and the closest main road in
the park is about a mile north of the international border. (Id. 15:24-16:5.)
On February 1, 2025, Gamblin was on duty in his service vehicle performing routine
daily checks. (Id. 21:3-5, 10-13.) Around 4:00 p.m., he was notified by the Sonoita Border
Patrol Station of a 2024 Nissan Rogue rental car with California license plates that was
moving suspiciously through the park. (Id. 22:3-12; 23:21-23.) The car had been observed
1 Evidence presented at a suppression hearing is viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government. United States v. Sherman, 430 F.2d 1402, 1404 (9th Cir. 1970).
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 7

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entering and exiting several canyons in a quick manner, which was inconsistent with
normal day-to-day traffic. (Id. 23:9-12.) Smuggling organizations use park canyons to
avoid detection. (Id. 17:10-18:3.) In the park, the Border Patrol uses cameras on fixed
towers that are focused on main avenues of travel to detect alien smuggling, but it is
difficult for the cameras to penetrate into the canyons. (Id.) Smuggling organizations use
the canyons to load up vehicles with undocumented aliens and the canyons are therefore
hotspots for illegal alien smuggling activity. (Id. 18:18-19:9.)
Gamblin testified that the car’s direction of travel also made it suspicious because
vehicles traveling with smuggling loads generally move east over Montezuma Pass to
quickly arrive at a more populated area. (Id. 26:12-16.) Gamblin added that criminal
organizations attempting to transport illegal aliens use rental vehicles the majority of the
time due to the ability of a rental car driver to remain anonymous. (Id. 22:15-20.) Gamblin
testified that the time of day of the vehicle’s movements was also suspicious because alien
smugglers prefer to conduct their business near shift changes, so Sonoita agents are either
just getting to the area or are not yet there around this time. (Id. 24:1-8.) Gamblin
explained that the vehicle’s movements were also suspicious because verified load drivers
not familiar with the area will quickly move in and out of areas attempting to get better cell
phone service to obtain an accurate alien pickup location. (Id. 24:9-25:4.)
On cross-examination, Gamblin admitted that the only way to cross the Montezuma
Pass in Coronado National Memorial Park was through Montezuma Canyon Road. (Id.
28:24-29:6.) Gamblin also conceded that many of the alien smuggling arrests he makes
involve privately registered vehicles, (id. 32:6-8); he was not informed exactly how many
locations the vehicle visited or how long it stayed in each location, (id. 32:18-25); he did
not know when or from where the vehicle was rented, (id. 33: 13-18); people from all over
the country visit the park, (id. 35:4-7); travelers through the park would need to exit the
east side of the park to locate the nearest gas station, (id. 37:7-16); and that 4:10 p.m. would
be two hours past his normal shift change, (id. 38:22-25).
On redirect examination, Gamblin testified that the license plate of the vehicle he
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pulled over matched the license plate of the vehicle described as driving suspiciously by
the Sonoita Border Patrol Station. (Id. 42:10-15.)
2. Investigator Duron
Investigator Raymond Duron testified that he canvassed the area where Ward was
arrested and prepared a report. (Doc. 64 at 45:7-9.) Duron testified that he has had his
own investigative agency since 2010, and that he was trained as an apprentice from 2000
to 2010. (Id. 45:23-46:3.) Duron further testified that as of 2022, he had investigated 600
cases, not all of which were illegal smuggling cases. (Id. 46:14-17.)
Duron explained that he canvassed the area where Ward was arrested on December
22, 2025. (Id. 47:13-14.) Duron provided the foundation for fifty-two (52) photographic
exhibits. (Id. 49:7-10.) Duron testified that the exhibits demonstrate there are many scenic
and recreational opportunities available in Coronado National Memorial Park. (See, e.g.,
id. 51:22-52:11; 54:16-19; 59:9-12.) Duron admitted that during his visit, his cell phone
service was poor and intermittent. (Id. 53:11-14.) Duron testified that he encountered
several vehicles with out-of-state license plates during his visit. (Id. 53:20-23; 55:13-17.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 26, 2025, Ward was indicted by grand jury with four felony counts of
conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for profit and transportation of illegal aliens for profit,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), 1324(a)(1)(B)(i), and
18 U.S.C. § 2. (Doc. 26.) On March 28, 2025, Ward entered a not guilty plea. (Doc. 34.)
On November 4, 2025, Ward filed a motion to suppress evidence, (Doc. 54), to which the
Government filed a response, (Doc. 58). On January 6, 2026, the Court held an evidentiary
hearing and heard oral argument on Ward’s motion to suppress. (Doc. 62.) On January
14, 2026, the Court received a copy of the official transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
(Doc. 64.) This Report and Recommendation follows.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures
extends to brief investigatory stops. United States v. Jimenez-Medina, 173 F.3d 752, 754
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 7

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(9th Cir. 1999). Officers on roving border patrols “may conduct brief investigatory stops
without violating the Fourth Amendment if the officer’s action is supported by reasonable
suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot.” United States v. Valdes-Vega,
738 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts which, together with objective
and reasonable inferences, form a basis for suspecting that a particular person is engaged
in criminal conduct.” United States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000)
(cleaned up). When evaluating an officer’s reasonable suspicion, courts are to consider the
“totality of the circumstances.” Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1078 (quoting United States v.
Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)). “This process allows officers to draw on their own
experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the
cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.”
Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (cleaned up). “It also precludes a divide-and-conquer analysis
because even though each of the suspect’s acts was perhaps innocent in itself[,] taken
together, they may warrant further investigation.” Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1078 (cleaned
up). “The government bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the officer’s
suspicion,” United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir. 2010), and a
reasonable suspicion determination “need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct,”
Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277.
DISCUSSION
Ward brings the motion at hand arguing that Agent Gamblin lacked reasonable
suspicion to stop his vehicle. (Doc. 54 at 5-10.) The Court disagrees.
I. Government Demonstrates Reasonable Suspicion for Stop
In the case of brief investigatory stops, it is the Government’s burden to demonstrate
that a warrantless seizure does not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v.
Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2012). When analyzing whether a Border Patrol
agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, courts look to the totality
of the circumstances. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d at 1078. The totality of the circumstances
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 7

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
may include: (i) characteristics of the area; (ii) proximity to the border; (iii) usual patterns
of traffic and time of day; (iv) previous alien smuggling in the area; (v) behavior of the
driver; (vi) the appearance of passengers; and (vii) the model and appearance of the vehicle.
Id. at 1079. Not all of these factors must be present to justify reasonable suspicion, and
“the facts must be filtered through the lens of the agents’ training and experience.” Id.
At the evidentiary hearing on Ward’s motion to suppress evidence, the Government
offered sufficient, unrefuted evidence that Agent Gamblin had a particularized and
objective basis to suspect that Ward was engaged in alien smuggling to stop his vehicle.
See United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 968 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up)
(“Reasonable suspicion is defined as a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the
particular person stopped of criminal activity.”).
Gamblin testified that he has been employed as a Border Patrol agent for nearly
eight years, nearly all of which have been spent in or around the area of responsibility in
which Ward’s vehicle was stopped. (Doc. 64 at 13:7-14.) Gamblin gave an extensive
overview of the Coronado National Memorial Park, the highway that travels through the
park, and the land on the eastern edge of the park where Ward’s vehicle was stopped. (Id.
14:8-15:22.) Gamblin explained that before stopping Ward’s vehicle, he was informed by
a neighboring Border Patrol Station that the vehicle had been traveling in an uncommon
and evasive traffic pattern, (id. 23:9-17), in an area and on a route a short distance away
from the international border known to be frequented by alien smugglers, (id. 26:12-19;
27:10-14), at a time of day close to when a shift change would occur, (id. 24:1-8), and that
the vehicle carried an out-of-state license plate, (id. 22:8-9), and was a rental car, (id. 22:10-
12). Ward either failed to effectively challenge or conceded these facts at the evidentiary
suppression hearing. (See generally id. 28:20-41:24.)
The situation at hand is similar to the scenario in United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738
F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). There, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit ruled that the location of the stop, proximity to the international border, route
known to be used by smugglers, foreign license plates, and erratic driving pattern were
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 7

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion finding. 738 F.3d at 1079-80. The court went
on to recommended a holistic “totality of the circumstances” view when evaluating an
agent’s reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. Id. at 1078-81. The court
reiterated that a totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation “precludes a divide-and-conquer
analysis” because a suspect’s seemingly innocuous acts, taken together, may warrant
further investigation. Id. at 1078. It also repeated that “[i]t is not our province to nitpick
the factors in isolation but instead to view them in the totality of the circumstances,” which
“allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make
inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that
might well elude an untrained person.” Id. (citations omitted). In light of this ruling,
Ward’s argument that he was subjected to an unlawful investigatory stop for overly broad,
innocuous reasons, (see Doc. 54 at 6-8), is outdated and unavailing.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge,
after her independent review, deny Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 54).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59, any party may serve and file written
objections within 14 days of being served a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). A party may respond to the other party’s objections within 14 days.
LRCiv 7.2(c). No reply shall be filed unless leave is granted by the District Judge. If
objections are filed, the following case number should be used: CR-25-1229-JGZ. Failure
to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may
result in waiver of the right of de novo review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2).
Dated this 4th day of March, 2026.
Case 4:25-cr-01229-JGZ-JEM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 7 of 7