Page 54 - May June 2019 TPA Journal
P. 54

temporary plates to be suspicious. However, after   suspicion. However, the Government significantly
        being pressed by the magistrate judge he stated     overstates how familiar Agent Perez was with the
        paper plates could indicate someone attempting to   local traffic, as  Agent Perez only said he
        avoid detection.  What  Agent Perez did find        recognized some vehicles, not that he recognized
        unusual  was  the  fact  that  the  vehicle  was    most. Further, Agent Perez did not actually testify
        registered to an individual rather than a company,  that he did not recognize the truck, as it was a
        as well as the fact that the truck was from Houston  common type of vehicle to be in that area and he
        and FM 2050 was not the most direct route to        found nothing suspicious about it until after
        Houston. Freeman argues the district court          running the license plate check.
        properly accorded little to no weight to  these
        factors. Freeman argues that the reasoning behind   6. Agent Perez’s Experience.
        paper plates contributing to reasonable
                                                            The remaining factor is Agent Perez’s experience,
        suspicion—that a driver might wish to evade
                                                            which, after proximity to the border, is likely the
        detection—does not apply in this case because
                                                            most important factor because the facts are to be
        when Agent Perez’s partner ran the license plate, it
                                                            viewed through the eyes of an objective officer
        turned  up  current  information.  The  Government
                                                            with Agent Perez’s experience. The parties diverge
        counters that Freeman is simply considering this
                                                            in how they characterize Agent Perez’s experience.
        fact in isolation and not how an objective officer
                                                            Freeman contends that the district court correctly
        would view the situation. However, Freeman’s
                                                            concluded that Agent Perez was inexperienced at
        interpretation appears bolstered by the fact that, at
                                                            detecting  illegal  activity.  The  Government
        the time of the stop, Agent Perez did not find the
                                                            contends that with over 8 years of experience at the
        paper license plates to be anything unusual. The
                                                            checkpoint and twenty to thirty stops on this
        facts must be taken together (both the paper plates
                                                            specific road, Agent Perez should be considered to
        and  the current registration) and viewed in the
                                                            have extensive experience. However, it is not
        light most favorable to Freeman—meaning paper
                                                            simply the agent’s time on the job that is relevant,
        license plates under these specific circumstances
                                                            but  the  agent’s  experience  in  detecting  illegal
        deserve little weight.
                                                            activity.   Viewed in the light most favorable to
        Freeman next notes that the assumption that it is   Freeman, Agent Perez’s experience as it pertained
        suspicious to travel an indirect route to where the  to detecting illegal activity on roving patrol stops
        car is registered “cannot be made. Even if such an  should be viewed in a much more constrained way.
        assumption were ‘reasonable,’ it simply is not      It is undisputed  Agent Perez drove FM 2050
        unusual that the particular route chosen by a driver  “numerous times,” but that he made only two to
        does not coincide with a route Border Patrol        three successful stops over the course of eight
        Agents consider more direct or common. This is      years. When these facts are considered in context
        especially true when the driver is from another     with the normal number of stops on FM 2050, it
        part of the state.” To the extent that Freeman’s    suggests  Agent Perez had very little experience
        decision to take an indirect route to Houston       detecting illegal activity. Agent Perez testified that
        affects the reasonable suspicion analysis, it is    agents conducted approximately ten to twenty
        encompassed within the fact that FM 2050 is a       stops per week.  Taking the low range of this
        known smuggling route.                              estimate, that would mean approximately 4,160
                                                            stops were conducted during his tenure at the Freer
        The Government mentions several times the fact      checkpoint. Even assuming  Agent Perez made
        that  Agent Perez did not recognize Freeman’s       thirty stops, he participated in only a fraction of the
        truck and argues this weighs in favor of reasonable  stops along FM 2050, and, out of the few stops he





        50                www.texaspoliceassociation.com  •  866-997-8282              Texas Police Journal
   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59