Ocampo

MEMORANDUM **

We have held in numerous border cases that routine handcuffing of a detainee as a safety precaution while escorting him to *811 the secondary inspection office, even when combined with the frisking of the detainee and the confiscating of some of his personal items, does not convert a reasonable detention into an illegal arrest, nor does it convert a reasonable detention into an unreasonable one. See, e.g., United States v. Nava, 363 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 439 , 160 L.Ed.2d 347 (2004); United States v. Hernandez, 322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003) (as amended); United States v. Zaragoza, 295 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 956 , 123 S.Ct. 1651 , 155 L.Ed.2d 506 (2003); United States v. Bravo, 295 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 971 , 123 S.Ct. 1775 , 155 L.Ed.2d 530 (2003). These cases control our decision here. The detention here was reasonable.

Ocampo challenges the model grand jury instructions because they admonish the grand jury not to consider the “wisdom of the criminal laws” or to be “concerned about punishment.” The outcome is directly controlled by our recent en banc decision in United States…