United States v. v. Marchena-Borjas ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-4024
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska
    Vicente Marchena-Borjas,                 *
    *     [TO BE PUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 16, 2000
    Filed: April 5, 2000
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,
    Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Vicente Marchena-Borjas appeals from a final judgment entered in the United
    States District Court1 for the District of Nebraska upon his conditional guilty plea to
    one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
    methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. See United States v. Marchena-
    Borjas, No. 8:98CR137-1 (D. Neb. Nov. 1, 1999). For reversal, Marchena-Borjas
    1
    The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained
    as a result of his warrantless arrest and the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle
    in which he had been a passenger. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
    Marchena-Borjas was indicted on June 18, 1998, on one count of conspiracy to
    distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He filed a motion
    to suppress, arguing that he was arrested and the vehicle was searched without any
    probable cause and in the absence of a valid search or arrest warrant. On October 5,
    and November 10, 1998, suppression hearings were held before a magistrate judge2 on
    this motion, as well as other motions filed by his co-defendant, Joel Barone-Hermosillo.
    The magistrate judge also permitted post-hearing oral arguments on the motions on
    March 12, 1999. Witnesses testifying at the suppression hearing included six officers
    from city and county police departments in the Omaha, Nebraska, area as well as one
    special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. Based upon the
    evidence presented, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
    containing the following findings of fact. See 
    id. at 2-12
    (Apr. 28, 1999) ("Report and
    Recommendation").
    On the early afternoon of May 8, 1998, a confidential informant reported to
    Omaha police officers that a Hispanic male named "Vicente" was in possession of
    methamphetamine that day at a certain trailer court in Bellevue, Nebraska (later
    identified as 1513 Fort Crook Road, Trailer #1). The confidential informant further
    stated that, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Vicente would deliver the methamphetamine,
    driving a silver Oldsmobile mini-van with Nebraska license plates numbered
    "18-U672" from the Bellevue trailer court to the parking lot of a grocery store on the
    northeast corner of 36th and Q Streets in Omaha.
    2
    The Honorable Kathleen A. Jaudzemis, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    -2-
    Based on this information, local officers set up surveillance at the Bellevue trailer
    court. At 7:45 p.m., two men with dark hair and dark complexions were observed
    leaving Trailer #1 and getting into a silver Oldsmobile mini-van with license plates
    numbered "18-U672." The mini-van was under intermittent surveillance as it traveled
    from the trailer court to the parking lot at 36th and Q Streets. Officers did not observe
    the mini-van commit any traffic violations.
    After the mini-van pulled into the parking lot, the driver and passenger exited.
    Surveillance officers who were waiting at the lot immediately pulled their own vehicle
    behind the mini-van and exited with their weapons drawn. The driver (later identified
    as Barone-Hermosillo) was detained and handcuffed immediately after exiting the van.
    The passenger (later identified as Marchena-Borjas) wandered around the front of the
    parking lot and then walked back toward the van. Officers detained and handcuffed
    him after he was identified by other officers as the van's other occupant. After
    searching the van's interior and finding no contraband, the officers looked under the
    hood of the vehicle and found a plastic grocery bag containing two one-pound bundles
    of methamphetamine stuffed into the engine compartment on the driver's side.
    The magistrate judge concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest
    Marchena-Borjas and to search the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The
    magistrate judge found probable cause for the arrest given the reliability of the
    confidential informant, the specificity of detail provided by the informant, and the
    officers' independent verification and corroboration of the informant's predictions of
    future activity, even though certain details related to otherwise "innocent" behavior.
    See 
    id. at 13-15.
    The magistrate judge also determined that, under the totality of the
    circumstances, probable cause existed to justify the search of the entire van (including
    the engine compartment) under the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment.
    See 
    id. at 16-19.
    The magistrate judge recommended that Marchena-Borjas's motion
    to suppress be denied. See 
    id. at 19,
    21.
    -3-
    Marchena-Borjas filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and
    recommendation. After a de novo review of the record, including the transcripts of the
    suppression hearings and the post-hearing oral arguments, the district court accepted
    the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety and denied Marchena-
    Borjas's motion to suppress. See 
    id. at 1-2
    (June 10, 1999). This appeal followed.
    We have carefully reviewed the parties' arguments and the record on appeal,
    including the transcript of the suppression hearings, and determine that Marchena-
    Borjas' arguments are without merit. The historical reliability of the confidential
    informant, his provision of descriptive information not easily discoverable, and the
    independent corroboration of his information by investigating officers together
    established probable cause for Marchena-Borjas's arrest. See Draper v. United States,
    
    358 U.S. 307
    , 313 (1959); United States v. Brown, 
    49 F.3d 1346
    , 1349 (8th Cir. 1995)
    (Brown) (noting that corroboration of "certain aspects of [informant's] prediction (the
    innocent behavior) increases the probability that other aspects of his prediction (the
    criminal behavior) are also correct."). Moreover, although the search of the van and
    its engine compartment did not fall within the scope of a search incident to arrest, see
    New York v. Belton, 
    453 U.S. 454
    , 460 n.4 (1981), the facts that created probable
    cause to arrest Marchena-Borjas "create[d] with equal force probable cause to believe
    that the [vehicle] contained" methamphetamine. 
    Brown, 49 F.3d at 1350
    . The
    identification of Marchena-Borjas as "Vicente" prior to the search of the van
    corroborated yet another of the tip's details and further supported probable cause for
    a search of the entire vehicle under the totality of the circumstances. See Transcript of
    Suppression Hearing at 70-73 (Nov. 10, 1998); Report and Recommendation at 17; see
    also United States v. Thompson, 
    906 F.2d 1292
    , 1297-98 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding
    probable cause under totality of circumstances for search of car trunk).
    -4-
    We hold that the district court did not err in denying Marchena-Borjas's motion
    to suppress. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -5-