Page 48 - TPA Journal January February 2022

regard to this factor, we have held that “[t]he factors suggests that Stauffiger lacked reasonable
proximity element is satisfied . . . if the defendant’s suspicion to stop Nelson’s vehicle. But we have
car was first observed within 50 miles of the United repeatedly counselled that “not every factor must
States/Mexico border.” It is undisputed that weigh in favor of reasonable suspicion for it to be
Nelson’s vehicle was first spotted at the Laredo- present.” Here, just 29 miles from the border, a
North checkpoint less than 50 miles from the highly experienced Border Patrol agent noticed
border, here 29 miles, a factor weighing in favor of anomalies with Nelson’s vehicle and saw what
the reasonableness of Stauffiger’s suspicions. appeared to be bundles of narcotics inside.

Furthermore, “an officer’s experience is a Accepting Nelson’s compliant behavior, viewing
contributing factor in determining whether the totality of the circumstances in the light most
reasonable suspicion exists.” “[A]fter proximity to favorable to the Government, we are satisfied that
the border, [experience] is likely the most important Stauffiger’s stop of Nelson’s vehicle was supported
factor because the facts are to be viewed through by reasonable suspicion.
the eyes of an objective officer with Agent
[Stauffiger’s] experience.” Agent Stauffiger Next, Nelson challenges the district court’s denial
received five months of training at the Border of his motion to suppress statements he made to
Patrol Academy, and he received nine months of Agent Stauffiger while waiting for the canine unit
post-academy training after that. As a Border Patrol to arrive, arguing that he was in custody and
Agent, he worked various operations at Laredo therefore entitled to Miranda warnings prior to
North for nine years and worked at the DEA for being questioned.
two years investigating narcotics crimes. His
training and experience at the Generally, a suspect’s incriminating statements
border, as well as his specialized work investigating during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible if
narcotics crimes support his suspicions here. he has not first received Miranda warnings. “A
suspect is ‘in custody’ for Miranda purposes when
From this extensive experience, Agent Stauffiger placed under formal arrest or when a reasonable
noticed irregularities with Nelson’s vehicle. He person in the suspect’s position would have
knew the seal on Nelson’s trailer was likely understood the situation to constitute a restraint on
incompatible with a scan that seemingly showed a freedom of movement of the degree which the law
small amount of personal equipment inside. He associates with formal arrest.” “The requisite
also knew the VACIS images of Nelson’s trailer restraint on freedom is greater than that required in
were consistent with images of bundles of the Fourth Amendment seizure context.” Whether
narcotics, facts further supporting Stauffiger’s a suspect is in custody is an objective
suspicion that Nelson was engaged in illegal determination, depending on the totality of the
activity. circumstances, that looks to the circumstances
surrounding the interrogation and whether, given
Nelson points out that his consent to the initial scan the circumstances, a reasonable person would have
weighs against a finding of reasonable suspicion, felt he was at liberty to terminate the interrogation
and we agree; that the Government’s failure to and leave. “[T]his court has repeatedly considered
produce evidence related to other Brignoni-Ponce certain key details when analyzing whether an

44 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal