United States v. Arturo Ramirez , 378 F. App'x 727 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10121
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:07-CR-01060-JMR-
GEE
v.
ARTURO RAMIREZ, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RYMER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Ramirez (“Ramirez”) appeals his conviction of various alien
smuggling charges on the ground that the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence seized by the government after an inventory search of his duffel
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
bag was error. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to
suppress evidence. United States v. Monghur, 576 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.
2009), amended and superseded by 588 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2009). Factual findings
are reviewed for clear error. Id. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Ramirez was arrested by Border Patrol agents on suspicion of involvement
in alien smuggling. After discovering illegal aliens in a motel room that Ramirez
had apparently paid for, Border Patrol agents followed Ramirez into another open
motel room being cleaned by a member of the custodial staff. Although Ramirez
claimed that the room was his, the custodian confirmed for the agents that the room
was not listed as occupied, that Ramirez’s keys did not work in that room, and that
there was no room in the motel corresponding to the room number that Ramirez
claimed was his.
Incident to the arrest, and with Ramirez’s consent, agents searched
Ramirez’s duffel bag for weapons. They found none. At the Border Patrol station,
agents did an inventory search of the bag in the presence of Ramirez. They
discovered, among other things, Mexican currency, Mexican birth certificates,
Mexican passports, and a Mexican driver’s license.
2
Ramirez urges us to find error with the district court’s denial of his motion
to suppress because the warrantless search at the station violated his Fourth
Amendment rights. We disagree. An “inventory search constitutes a well-defined
exception to the warrant requirement.” Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643
(1983). “The policies behind the warrant requirement are not implicated in an
inventory search nor is the related concept of probable cause.” Colorado v.
Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 (1987) (internal citation omitted). The decisions of the
Supreme Court “point unmistakably to the conclusion reached by both federal and
state courts that inventories pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable.”
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372 (1976). These inventory
procedures function to protect an owner's property while it is in police custody,
insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and safeguard the
police against potential dangers. Bertine, 479 U.S. at 372.
Ramirez does not contest the constitutionality of inventory searches
generally, but argues that because he was a guest in the motel, the agents
improperly seized his bag and thus artificially created the circumstances under
which an inventory search was necessary. His argument is unconvincing. Ramirez
was not arrested in his own motel room; instead, he was arrested in an empty motel
room in which he was not staying. The notion that the agents should have left
3
Ramirez’s bag with the custodian, who by all accounts was mainly concerned with
shooing the occupants out of the room so she could do her job, is farfetched. The
agents reasonably assumed that Ramirez’s bag would be safer in their custody than
it would be if it was left where it was, or if it was left with a member of the
custodial staff whose job did not include functioning as a bailee. “The
reasonableness of any particular governmental activity does not necessarily or
invariably turn on the existence of alternative ‘less intrusive’ means.” Lafayette,
462 U.S. at 647 (upholding inventory search of a shoulder bag).
The search at the station was conducted pursuant to standard procedures and
there is no indication that the bag was seized in bad faith. Agents had already
searched the bag for weapons incident to the arrest; they had no reason to use the
inventory search as a pretext to look inside.
The conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
4