Page 27 - TPA Journal January February 2023
P. 27
of Tenorio’s vehicle. After sniffing the vehicle, the On appeal from a district court’s ruling on a
canine came over to Tenorio and alerted to his motion to suppress, we review factual findings for
boot. Also, during the secondary inspection, an clear error and legal conclusions de novo, viewing
officer discovered a GPS tracker beneath the steer- the evidence in the light most favorable to the pre-
ing wheel of Tenorio’s vehicle. Medina testified vailing party.
that during this period, Tenorio “avoid[ed] all eye
contact” and that his hands were “visibly trem- Tenorio’s first two arguments are resolved under
bling.” Medina frisked Tenorio for weapons, dur- the border-search exception to the Fourth
ing which officers noticed that Tenorio kept star- Amendment warrant requirement. Although the
ing down at his boots. An officer asked Tenorio to Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable
lift his leg and looked down to see black trash bags searches applies at the international border, its
inside his boots. Inside the bags was U.S. curren- protections there are “severely diminished.”
cy totaling $18,900, which, combined with an
additional $3,404 cash in Tenorio’s wallet, Because “[t]he Government’s interest in prevent-
amounted to $22,304. Officers called Homeland ing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at
Security Investigations (“HSI”) Agent Allen its zenith at the international border,” searches
Conner to the port of entry, where Conner met made at the border “are reasonable simply by
with Tenorio and read him his Miranda rights. virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.”
Tenorio waived those rights and told Conner that
the cash was from alien-smuggling activities. Accordingly, “[r]outine searches of the persons
After his interview with Tenorio, Conner searched and effects of entrants are not subject to any
two cell phones that Tenorio had on him but found requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable
nothing of interest. Conner never questioned cause, or warrant.” This court has held that the
Tenorio about the contents of the phones and later border-search exception applies not only to
turned the phones over to Tenorio’s mother. On entrants into the country but also to those depart-
July 10, 2019, Tenorio was charged in a one-count ing.
indictment with bulk cash smuggling in violation The border-search exception allows “routine”
of 31 U.S.C. § 5332. Tenorio moved to suppress searches and seizures without individualized sus-
evidence obtained from the searches at the border picion or probable cause. This court explained the
and the search of his cell phones, as well as his meaning of “routine” in United States v. Kelly,
post-arrest statements to Agent Conner. The dis- writing that
trict court held an evidentiary hearing and denied
the motion. Tenorio was convicted following a [a] “routine” search is one that
bench trial and now appeals, arguing that the court does not seriously invade a travel-
erred in denying his suppression motion. On er’s privacy. In evaluating whether
appeal, Tenorio contends that (1) the dog sniff of a search is routine, the key variable
his person was unlawful because the officers is the invasion of the privacy and
lacked reasonable suspicion, (2) his detention and dignity of the individual. We have
referral to a secondary inspection constituted a previously determined that ordi-
nonroutine border search, which required reason- nary patdowns or frisks, removal
able suspicion, and (3) the search of his cell of outer garments or shoes, and
phones at the border was unlawful because the emptying of pockets, wallets, or
officers lacked a search warrant and, in the alter- purses are all routine searches, and
native, lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the require no justification other than
search.
Jan. - Feb. 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 23
