NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-556 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:21-mj-03297-WVG-GPC-1 v.
FREDDY DANIEL MUNOZ-PEREZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 4, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and KOH, Circuit Judges, and BARKER, District Judge.***
Appellant Freddy Daniel Munoz-Perez appeals his conviction for illegal entry
under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Munoz-Perez argues that § 1325 is unconstitutional
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument. See Dkt. No. 52; Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable J. Campbell Barker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. under the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and that his statements from
his field interview and station interview were admitted at trial in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294, and
we affirm.
1. Munoz-Perez argues that § 1325 is unconstitutional under the Fifth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because Congress allegedly created the law
with discriminatory intent. Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses that argument. See
United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2023).
2. Munoz-Perez argues that the trial court erred in admitting his un-
Mirandized field interview. The court reviews the admissibility of statements
potentially obtained in violation of Miranda de novo but reviews the underlying
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 995 (9th Cir.
2009).
We “address[] Miranda challenges at the border by asking whether the
detention constituted a permissible Terry stop, or something more.” United States v.
Cabrera, 83 F.4th 729, 734 (9th Cir. 2023). During Terry stops, officers are
permitted to briefly detain and question a person without Mirandizing them to
confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicion that the person may be engaged in criminal
activity. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439–40 (1984). Whether a detention
is a permissible Terry stop or something more does not turn on whether a person
2 24-556 feels free to leave. See Cabrera, 83 F.4th at 734. Rather, the analysis examines
(1) whether the detaining agent had reasonable suspicion, (2) the reasonableness of
any physical restraint that was used, (3) the duration of the stop, and (4) whether
questioning went beyond the justification for the stop. See id. at 735.
Agent Alston, the agent who stopped Munoz-Perez, had reasonable suspicion
that Munoz-Perez was in the United States illegally. The night before, another agent
arrested and handcuffed Munoz-Perez in an area that is near the border but far from
a port of entry and that is commonly used for illegal entry, but Munoz-Perez escaped
into heavy brush. Agent Alston was aware of the escape when he discovered Munoz-
Perez attempting to hide in the brush in a nearby wooded area. When Agent Alston
instructed Munoz-Perez to sit up and show his hands, Agent Alston noticed that
Munoz-Perez was not wearing shoes and that handcuffs were dangling from one of
his wrists. Believing that Munoz-Perez was the person who escaped the night before,
Agent Alston handcuffed him and led him for five minutes back to the road where
Border Patrol trucks were parked.
Considering those circumstances, which showed that Munoz-Perez posed a
flight risk, handcuffing Munoz-Perez was a “limited and reasonable” physical
restraint. Id. at 735. Thus, “handcuffing [Munoz-Perez] . . . did not convert the Terry
stop into a custodial arrest.” United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 830
(9th Cir. 2005). Neither did walking Munoz-Perez for five minutes to the trucks
3 24-556 transgress the bounds of a Terry stop. See United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244
F.3d 728, 730–32 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 25, 2001), amended, 255 F.3d
1154 (9th Cir. 2001) (suspect who was caught and returned to a larger group of
suspects after fleeing was not in custody); Cabrera, 83 F.4th at 735 (holding that
suspect detained between border fences was not in custody without reference to
whether members of the public were present). Moreover, Agent Alston’s questions
about Munoz-Perez’s citizenship, documentation, and the legality of his presence
here were limited to the purpose of the stop. Munoz-Perez was not in custody during
the field interview, and the district court did not err in admitting the field-interview
statement.
3. Munoz-Perez argues that his interrogation statements at the Border
Patrol station were wrongly admitted at trial because he invoked his right to remain
silent. A suspect’s invocation must be objectively unambiguous. Davis v. United
States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994). An invocation is unambiguous if a suspect states
his desire to remain silent “sufficiently clearly that a reasonable [agent] in the
circumstances would understand” that the suspect is invoking his right. Garcia v.
Long, 808 F.3d 771, 777 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Davis, 512 U.S. at 459). When an
invocation is ambiguous, officers may continue the interrogation or seek
clarification. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461.
When asking whether a suspect invoked his rights, we consider whether his
4 24-556 words, in context, are susceptible of another meaning. See, e.g., United States v.
Rodriguez, 518 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008). But we have not required
“grammatical precision.” See Sessoms v. Grounds, 776 F.3d 615, 627 (9th Cir.
2015). For instance, in Michaels v. Davis, officers asked Michaels, “Well, what’s
your side of the story? What happened?” and then said that Michaels could stop
talking if there was a question that he did not want to answer. 51 F.4th 904, 919–20
(9th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Michaels responded, “Okay, that one,” which
unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent regarding the question, “Well,
what’s your side of the story? What happened?” Id. at 920, 925.
The context of Munoz-Perez’s alleged invocation made his statements
ambiguous.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-556 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:21-mj-03297-WVG-GPC-1 v.
FREDDY DANIEL MUNOZ-PEREZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 4, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and KOH, Circuit Judges, and BARKER, District Judge.***
Appellant Freddy Daniel Munoz-Perez appeals his conviction for illegal entry
under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Munoz-Perez argues that § 1325 is unconstitutional
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument. See Dkt. No. 52; Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable J. Campbell Barker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. under the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and that his statements from
his field interview and station interview were admitted at trial in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294, and
we affirm.
1. Munoz-Perez argues that § 1325 is unconstitutional under the Fifth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because Congress allegedly created the law
with discriminatory intent. Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses that argument. See
United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2023).
2. Munoz-Perez argues that the trial court erred in admitting his un-
Mirandized field interview. The court reviews the admissibility of statements
potentially obtained in violation of Miranda de novo but reviews the underlying
factual findings for clear error. United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 995 (9th Cir.
2009).
We “address[] Miranda challenges at the border by asking whether the
detention constituted a permissible Terry stop, or something more.” United States v.
Cabrera, 83 F.4th 729, 734 (9th Cir. 2023). During Terry stops, officers are
permitted to briefly detain and question a person without Mirandizing them to
confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicion that the person may be engaged in criminal
activity. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439–40 (1984). Whether a detention
is a permissible Terry stop or something more does not turn on whether a person
2 24-556 feels free to leave. See Cabrera, 83 F.4th at 734. Rather, the analysis examines
(1) whether the detaining agent had reasonable suspicion, (2) the reasonableness of
any physical restraint that was used, (3) the duration of the stop, and (4) whether
questioning went beyond the justification for the stop. See id. at 735.
Agent Alston, the agent who stopped Munoz-Perez, had reasonable suspicion
that Munoz-Perez was in the United States illegally. The night before, another agent
arrested and handcuffed Munoz-Perez in an area that is near the border but far from
a port of entry and that is commonly used for illegal entry, but Munoz-Perez escaped
into heavy brush. Agent Alston was aware of the escape when he discovered Munoz-
Perez attempting to hide in the brush in a nearby wooded area. When Agent Alston
instructed Munoz-Perez to sit up and show his hands, Agent Alston noticed that
Munoz-Perez was not wearing shoes and that handcuffs were dangling from one of
his wrists. Believing that Munoz-Perez was the person who escaped the night before,
Agent Alston handcuffed him and led him for five minutes back to the road where
Border Patrol trucks were parked.
Considering those circumstances, which showed that Munoz-Perez posed a
flight risk, handcuffing Munoz-Perez was a “limited and reasonable” physical
restraint. Id. at 735. Thus, “handcuffing [Munoz-Perez] . . . did not convert the Terry
stop into a custodial arrest.” United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 830
(9th Cir. 2005). Neither did walking Munoz-Perez for five minutes to the trucks
3 24-556 transgress the bounds of a Terry stop. See United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244
F.3d 728, 730–32 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 25, 2001), amended, 255 F.3d
1154 (9th Cir. 2001) (suspect who was caught and returned to a larger group of
suspects after fleeing was not in custody); Cabrera, 83 F.4th at 735 (holding that
suspect detained between border fences was not in custody without reference to
whether members of the public were present). Moreover, Agent Alston’s questions
about Munoz-Perez’s citizenship, documentation, and the legality of his presence
here were limited to the purpose of the stop. Munoz-Perez was not in custody during
the field interview, and the district court did not err in admitting the field-interview
statement.
3. Munoz-Perez argues that his interrogation statements at the Border
Patrol station were wrongly admitted at trial because he invoked his right to remain
silent. A suspect’s invocation must be objectively unambiguous. Davis v. United
States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994). An invocation is unambiguous if a suspect states
his desire to remain silent “sufficiently clearly that a reasonable [agent] in the
circumstances would understand” that the suspect is invoking his right. Garcia v.
Long, 808 F.3d 771, 777 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Davis, 512 U.S. at 459). When an
invocation is ambiguous, officers may continue the interrogation or seek
clarification. Davis, 512 U.S. at 461.
When asking whether a suspect invoked his rights, we consider whether his
4 24-556 words, in context, are susceptible of another meaning. See, e.g., United States v.
Rodriguez, 518 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008). But we have not required
“grammatical precision.” See Sessoms v. Grounds, 776 F.3d 615, 627 (9th Cir.
2015). For instance, in Michaels v. Davis, officers asked Michaels, “Well, what’s
your side of the story? What happened?” and then said that Michaels could stop
talking if there was a question that he did not want to answer. 51 F.4th 904, 919–20
(9th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Michaels responded, “Okay, that one,” which
unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent regarding the question, “Well,
what’s your side of the story? What happened?” Id. at 920, 925.
The context of Munoz-Perez’s alleged invocation made his statements
ambiguous. During the interrogation, the following exchange took place:
Agent: . . . Do you understand each one of your rights as I have read them to you?
Munoz-Perez: Well . . . yes.
Agent: Yes?
Munoz-Perez: Yes.
Agent: Okay. Are you—are you willing to answer my questions without having an attorney present?
Munoz-Perez: Alright.
Agent: Yes? I need you to answer each question I ask you, I need you to answer yes or no.
Munoz-Perez: Well, truthfully, this, no.
5 24-556 Agent: What?
Munoz-Perez: With this here, no.1
“Well, truthfully, this, no” did not clearly refer to the question regarding Munoz-
Perez’s willingness to speak because he gestured towards an object on the table
between him and the agent while making the statement. The agent may have
reasonably believed that Munoz-Perez may have been referring to something other
than whether he was willing to speak without an attorney, such as a previous question
or something related to the object. And when Munoz-Perez said, “With this here,
no,” he again gestured towards something on the table. That reinforced the agent’s
conclusion that he may have been attempting to refer to something other than
whether he was willing to speak without an attorney. Therefore, the agent was
reasonable in seeking clarification before re-reading the Miranda warnings,
confirming that Munoz-Perez understood his Miranda rights, and obtaining Munoz-
Perez’s waiver of those rights.
Because Munoz-Perez did not unambiguously invoke his right to remain
silent, the admission of his interrogation statements was proper.
AFFIRMED.
1 The transcript is a translation that the district court ruled sufficiently authenticated. The translation’s accuracy and admissibility are undisputed.
6 24-556