United States v. Santiago Cruz , 669 F. App'x 883 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 24 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-16936
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:10-cv-00682-LRH-WGC
v.
SANTIAGO CRUZ, MEMORANDUM*
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
$102,836.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2016**
Stanford, California
Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In this civil forfeiture action, claimant Santiago Cruz (“Cruz”) appeals the
denial of his motion to suppress evidence and grant of summary judgment in favor of
the United States. We affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Cruz’s motion to suppress. Viewing
the totality of the circumstances—including the odors of marijuana and air freshener
coming from the vehicle, Cruz’s demeanor, an expired car rental agreement, unusual
travel plans, Cruz’s prior drug conviction, and Cruz’s admission he had previously
sold drugs in Battle Mountain—reasonable suspicion existed to support Cruz’s brief
continued detention until the canine officer arrived at the scene. See United States v.
Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2007) (individually innocent factors
viewed collectively may amount to reasonable suspicion); see also United States v.
Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985) (prolonged detention justified if police diligently
pursued means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly).
Nor did the court err in granting the government’s motion for summary
judgment. The government presented evidence that the currency had a substantial
connection to drug trafficking: Cruz possessed a large amount of cash in small and
varied denominations, rubber-banded together in separate bundles; officers found a
“price list” for marijuana, two prepaid cell phones, a box of plastic baggies, and
receipts which indicated a peculiar travel itinerary that was inconsistent with the story
2
Cruz initially gave to officers. Cruz’s largely unsupported and self-serving attempts
to explain a legitimate source of the funds and a non-drug related reason to have such
a substantial amount of cash in his vehicle were permissibly disregarded by the court
as implausible. See United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 984
(9th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment appropriate where explanation so inherently
untrustworthy that a rational trier of fact could not return verdict in favor of claimant);
see also United States v. $133,420 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 638-39 (9th Cir.
2012) (conclusory self-serving affidavit insufficient to create issue of fact).
AFFIRMED.
3