United States v. Salmineo Bautista

MEMORANDUM

Salmineo Bautista conditionally pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements and evidence obtained from a traffic stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. Bautista contends the traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it was not supported by individualized reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We conclude that the factual findings the district court made and relied on for its reasonable suspicion determination were not clearly erroneous. Considering the permissible factors present, there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. We therefore affirm.

“[L]aw enforcement agents may briefly stop a moving automobile to investigate a reasonable suspicion that its occupants are involved in criminal activity.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 226 , 105 S.Ct. 675, 88 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). Such a stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure of “everyone in the vehicle” and each occupant has standing to challenge the stop. Brendlin v.…