USA v. Raul Rosale

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: SMITH, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 9. Judge: SMITH Authoring.

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 16-2437
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RAUL OSVALDO ROSALES,
a/k/a Saulo Solorazano,
a/k/a Saulo Solorzano
Raul Osvaldo Rosales,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-15-cr-00085-002
District Judge: The Honorable Jan E. DuBois
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 23, 2017
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 19, 2017)
_____________________
OPINION
_____________________



This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

SMITH, Chief Judge.
Raul Rosales appeals a District Court order denying a motion to suppress
evidence. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
I.
The following facts, taken from the District Court’s memorandum opinion
resolving the motion to suppress evidence, are not in dispute. On February 3,
2015, pilot Warren Nichols departed Los Angeles, California, in a small airplane.
The plane made a series of stops. Raul Rosales accompanied Nichols as the sole
passenger starting in at least Albuquerque, New Mexico. The next morning at 2:00
a.m., the two men landed at Wings Air Field, a small, rural airport outside
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
While in the air, the flight was monitored by the Air and Marine Operations
Center (AMOC), a division of the Department of Homeland Security.1 AMOC
began monitoring Nichols’s plane because it was leaving Los Angeles, a common
“source city” for drugs, and heading towards Philadelphia, a common “destination
city” for drugs. AMOC observed that the plane followed an unusual flight path,

According to the DHS website, AMOC was established “to counter the airborne
drug smuggling threat” and “investigates more than 25,000 domestic and foreign
flights per month to separate legal air traffic from potential violators and
terrorists.” See Air and Marine Operations Center, U.S. Customs & Border
Protection, www.cbp.gov/border-security/air-sea/operations/locations/am-opscenter (last visited April. 18, 2017).
1

2

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

stopping multiple times to refuel and changing course headings and altitude
frequently—actions that increased both the cost of the flight and the wear-and-tear
on the plane. AMOC deemed the flight suspicious and alerted the Homeland
Security Investigations Unit (HSI), which also began to monitor the flight. HSI
contacted local authorities in Pennsylvania.
During one refueling stop in Albuquerque, New Mexico, an AMOC
informant observed an Hispanic male (presumably Rosales) accompanying Nichols
as the sole passenger. The informant noted a large duffel bag in the plane and
observed that Nichols locked the plane during the brief stop. At a later refueling
stop in Oklahoma, an AMOC informant observed the plane taxi backwards down
the runway, leading the informant to conclude that the pilot was inexperienced. In
addition, AMOC informed HSI that, as the plane flew over Kentucky, the plane’s
transponder was turned off for three minutes, indicating an attempt to avoid
detection. After receiving this information from AMOC, HSI determined that
Nichols had previously been arrested in Philadelphia for drug possession and
carrying a concealed weapon.
After the plane landed, Rosales and Nichols disembarked and left the airport
on foot. The men began walking together down the dark and quiet road outside the
airfield when they were approached by authorities. One local police officer

3

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 4

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

initially approached them and, very shortly thereafter, two additional officers
arrived.
During the conversation with the officers, Nichols reached inside his bag
and authorities observed a white plastic bag containing what appeared to be
marijuana. When asked about the plastic bag, both men attempted to flee.
Authorities intercepted and arrested the men and recovered four bricks of cocaine
from their bags. After receiving a Miranda warning, Rosales provided a statement
admitting that he had assisted Nichols in transporting cocaine from California to
Pennsylvania. Rosales and Nichols were later indicted for possession and
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
Rosales moved to suppress both the physical evidence and his statement,
arguing that authorities lacked reasonable suspicion to make the initial
investigatory stop after the plane landed. The District Court held a hearing and, by
order entered October 8, 2015, denied the motion.
Rosales pleaded guilty but preserved his right to appeal the suppression
ruling. He was later sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Nichols also pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. He did not appeal.

4

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 5

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the District Court’s denial
of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual determinations
but exercise plenary review over the District Court’s application of law to those
facts.” United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 230 (3d Cir. 2011). We therefore
conduct a plenary review of whether a seizure is supported by reasonable
suspicion. United States v. Lowe, 791 F.3d 424, 427 (3d Cir. 2015).
Where, as here, authorities conduct a brief investigatory stop without a
warrant, the seizure is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if the officers
acted with “reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30
(1968)). Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause,
but requires at least a minimal level of objective justification; the officer “must be
able to articulate more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or
“hunch”’ of criminal activity.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123-24 (citing Terry, 392
U.S. at 27). Because the concept of reasonable suspicion cannot be reduced to a
“neat set of legal rules,” we must consider the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1989) (citation omitted). Even where each fact
being considered may not itself be inconsistent with innocent travel, a set of facts
5

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 6

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

taken together may give rise to reasonable suspicion. Id. at 9. The inquiry is not
whether the conduct is innocent or guilty, but the degree of suspicion that attaches
to particular types of non-criminal acts. Id. at 10.
III.
The District Court determined that, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the
men were stopped when the first officer approached Rosales and Nichols on the
road outside the airfield. Rosales does not dispute that determination. Rosales
claims the District Court erroneously concluded that the circumstances gave rise to
reasonable suspicion for the stop. He contends the flight activities observed by
AMOC and HSI were not inherently suspicious and could have been viewed as
activities of a hobbyist or an inexperienced small-plane pilot. The stop, he argues,
was based on no more than mere speculation that criminal activity was afoot and
was not justified by reasonable, articulable facts indicating Rosales was engaged in
criminal activity. We disagree.
The facts presented, taken together, are sufficient to give rise to objectively
justifiable suspicion—far more than a mere “hunch”—of criminal activity, for a
number of reasons. First, the officers who stopped Nichols and Rosales had the
benefit of AMOC’s input in deeming the small plane’s flight suspicious. We have
held that officers may draw on their specialized training to make inferences about
the information available to them. United States v. Thompson, 772 F.3d 752, 758
6

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 7

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

(3d Cir. 2014). AMOC flagged the flight based on a number of articulated facts,
including knowledge of “source” and “destination” cities for drugs, an uncommon
flight pattern (frequent stops and changes in course headings and altitude), and
unusual behavior reported by on-the-ground AMOC informants (locking the plane
during a brief refueling, taxiing backward down a runway).
Second, unusual means of travel or strange behavior while travelling, even if
legal, may give rise to reasonable suspicion, see Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 8-10, as may
an unusual time and location of the stop, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032,
1050 (1983), and the stopped individual’s criminal history, see United States v.
Mathurin, 561 F.3d 170, 176-77 (3d Cir. 2009). Nichols and Rosales engaged in
unusual means of travel (an overnight cross-country flight in a small plane that
made frequent stops and altitude changes), engaged in apparent efforts to attempt
evasion (turning off the plane’s transponder and departing the airport on foot),
arrived at an unusual time and location (in a pre-dawn hour at a deserted rural
airport), and Nichols had a criminal history (including a drug arrest).
Finally, reasonable suspicion as to one individual may “taint” his associate,
where the criminal activity is contemporaneous with the association or where the
nature of the activity is such that it could not normally be carried out without the
knowledge of all present. See United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d 719, 727
(1st Cir. 1995). Rosales was Nichols’s sole passenger for a lengthy overnight
7

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 8

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

cross-country flight in a small airplane; he was present for the plane’s numerous
stops, including the stop during which Nichols locked the plane for a brief
refueling; and he accompanied Nichols by departing a deserted airport on foot
down a desolate rural road.
These circumstances, considered together, are sufficient to give rise to
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and that Rosales was involved
in it. Cf. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 US. 85, 91 (1979) (“[A] person’s mere propinquity
to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give
rise to probable cause to search that person.”). While Rosales is correct that the
flight could have been that of a hobbyist and that some of the details observed by
AMOC and HSI could be attributed to inexperience rather than criminal activity,
an alternative innocent explanation does not undermine our conclusion. See
Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9. Viewing the sum of the circumstances, it is apparent that
the authorities relied upon articulable, objective facts giving rise to reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to stop Rosales.2

The District Court determined that the Terry stop occurred when the first officer
approached Rosales and Nichols. The Government argues that we should conclude
that the seizure occurred about one minute later, when the two additional officers
arrived, and that we should therefore consider one additional fact in support of
reasonable suspicion (specifically, a false statement by Nichols about the length of
the flight, which he made to the first officer). Rosales responds that the record is
unclear as to the precise timing of the false statement and that it was not made
before he and Nichols were seized in any event. Because inclusion of this fact
2

8

Case: 16-2437

Document: 003112597167

Page: 9

Date Filed: 04/19/2017

IV.
Because authorities had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop,
Rosales has not demonstrated that the District Court erred in denying his motion to
suppress. The District Court’s order therefore will be affirmed and the judgment
of conviction will stand.

would not change the outcome of the appeal, we see no need to act on the
Government’s suggestion to more closely consider the precise timing of the stop or
of Nichols’s false statement.
9