United States v. Jose Jimenez-Palacio

609 F. App'x 499

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 13, 2015
• Docket: 14-10266
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Jose Jimenez-Palacio was convicted of unlawful reentry after deportation,- in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Camou, 773 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.2014), we affirm.

At the time Defendant made the statements that he seeks to suppress, he was not in custody for Fifth Amendment purposes. Under the circumstances, Special Agent Gallardo had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and could therefore ask him questions “ ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.’ ” United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). That included questions “ ‘about [Defendant’s] citizenship and immigration status,’ ” and questions seeking “ ‘to explain suspicious circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). The fact that Special Agent Gal-lardo placed Defendant in handcuffs did not, without more, convert the lawful stop into a custodial arrest. Id.; see also United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 520 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that a border patrol agent’s blocking the stopped vehicle, approaching the vehicle with his gun drawn, and interrogating the individual about his citizenship and immigration status did not convert the stop into a custodial arrest).

AFFIRMED.

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.