United States v. Salvador Moreno-Buelna, United States of America v. Raul Nava-Flores

Good Law
524 F.2d 1129·1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12709
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 19, 197575-1120, 75-1119California4,206 words

Opinion

Opinion

524 F.2d 1129 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador MORENO-BUELNA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul NAVA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 75-1120, 75-1119. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 19, 1975. 1 Michael J. McCabe (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellants. 2 Jeffrey F. Arbetman, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION 3 Before CHAMBERS and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and REAL, * District Judge. REAL, District Judge: 4 These appeals involve the legality of a search made without a warrant. 5 Agents of the Drug Enforcement administration, after having received information of an informant, commenced surveillance at about 3:00 P.M., November 5, 1973. Observing the vehicle a blue Pontiac license number HGP 761 previously described to them enter the United States from Mexico, the agents followed the Pontiac to a residence in Calexico. 6 At the residence two females exited the Pontiac, met with other people at the residence, and then departed the residence in another vehicle. 7 Sometime later a white pickup equipped with a shell-type camper arrived at the…

concurrence Opinion

Chambers, J.

(concurring):

I concur. I have no difficulty in finding probable cause for this search. The uncontroverted evidence, including the facts as stipulated by the parties, is that on the morning in question a tip was received from an informer, who had proved himself reliable, that “before too long” a blue-green Pontiac with California license number HGP 761, and containing marijuana, would enter the United States and proceed to a location in Calexico where the contraband would be “stashed.” Early that afternoon, within a matter of hours, a Pontiac matching the description precisely, entered from Mexico and proceeded to a residence in Calexico. The ensuing events add up to a classic border-area stashing operation. The driver and her passenger parked the car in front of the residence and then left by other conveyance. A man from the residence moved the Pontiac into the driveway and two men began working in the rear seat area, making several trips into the house during the next ten minutes. An hour or so later a man drove the Pontiac back into Mexico.

Before dawn the next morning a blue pickup that had been parked in front was moved to the rear of the house without the aid of…

dissent Opinion

Hufstedler, J.

(dissenting):

The convictions of both defendants should be reversed because there was no probable cause to search the Chevrolet. The majority says that information supplied by the informant furnished probable cause. The informant telephoned an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration and told him that a blue-green Pontiac, California license HGP 761, would enter the United States at Calexico “before too long” and would “contain marijuana.” If the informant gave the agent “any explanation, source or basis for this information, the government failed to introduce it.” (United States v. Hamilton (9th Cir. 1974), 490 F.2d 598, 600 .)

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the agent who received the informant’s phone call testified that the informant had supplied him with accurate information about contraband-laden vehicles on four to six occasions within the previous six years. This testimony was directed to the issue of the informant’s reliability. However, “there is a ‘two-pronged’ test. It is necessary to make some showing of the validity of the conclusions made by the reliable informant.” (United States v. Hamilton, supra, 490 F.2d at 600 ; see Spinelli v. United States…

lead Opinion

Real, J.

These appeals involve the legality of a search made without a warrant.

Agents of the Drug Enforcement administration, after having received information of an informant, commenced surveillance at about 3:00 P.M., November 5, 1973. Observing the vehicle — a blue Pontiac — license number HGP 761 — previously described to them — enter the United States from Mexico, the agents followed the Pontiac to a residence in Calexico.

At the residence two females exited the Pontiac, met with other people at the residence, and then departed the residence in another vehicle.

Sometime later a white pickup equipped with a shell-type camper arrived at the residence driven by a male person. The driver of the pickup entered the residence. Shortly thereafter, a white Dodge that had been parked in the driveway of the residence was moved and another male person moved the Pontiac into the driveway. Two males were observed for about ten minutes making two trips from the back seat of the Pontiac to the rear of the residence.

At approximately 6:00 P.M. the Pontiac, driven by a single male, departed, proceeded south and went into Mexico.

Continuing surveillance the agents saw no lights or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.