FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50490 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:14-cr-00036- VAP-1 NOE RAYGOZA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 8, 2018 Pasadena, California Filed August 31, 2018 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Jack Zouhary, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Murguia; Concurrence by Judges Murguia and Zouhary * The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. RAYGOZA-GARCIA SUMMARY ** Criminal Law The panel affirmed (1) the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress narcotics that Border Patrol Agents found in the defendant’s vehicle, and (2) the district court’s denial of the defendant’s request for the court to take judicial notice of other Border Patrol stops. Given the totality of the circumstances, and giving due weight to the Agents’ observations and the district court’s factual findings, the panel held that the Agents, who had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that this court, or the district court, should consider evidence of “unproductive stops” in the same area, or stops from which no federal prosecutions arose, which the defendant contends show that the Border Patrol Station agents were not properly applying the reasonable suspicion standard. The panel held that this evidence does not constitute facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute and thus, under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), are not the proper subject for judicial notice. Specially concurring, Judges Murguia and Zouhary wrote separately because although the panel is bound by United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. RAYGOZA-GARCIA 3 (en banc), they have concerns about how this court reviews reasonable suspicion determinations near the border. COUNSEL Gail Ivens (argued), King City, California, for Defendant- Appellant. Bram Alden (argued), Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff- Appellee. OPINION MURGUIA, Circuit Judge: We consider defendant Noe Raygoza-Garcia’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress narcotics that Border Patrol Agents found in his vehicle. Raygoza- Garcia contends that the initial stop of his vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. We hold there was reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress the evidence of narcotics found as a result of the stop. We also affirm the district court’s denial of Raygoza-Garcia’s request for the court to take judicial notice of evidence of other Border Patrol stops. I. A. The Border Patrol Agents’ Initial Observations On March 12, 2014, Raygoza-Garcia was driving ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals