From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hill

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Mar 4, 2022
No. 21-CR-3109-TWR (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022)

Opinion

21-CR-3109-TWR

03-04-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEANDRE LAMONT HILL, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

HONORABLE TODD W. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Pending before the Court is defendant Hill's “Motion to Suppress Evidence Following Improper Terry Stop” [“Motion”]. [ECF No. 24.] The Government has filed an opposition to the Motion. [ECF No. 25.] On February 25, 2022, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion. [ECF No. 28.]

Based on the parties' written submissions and the evidence adduced during the evidentiary hearing, the Court finds that Border Patrol Agent Whalen had reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Hill was engaged in criminal activity. More specifically, at the time he conducted the challenged stop of Mr. Hill, Agent Whalen was aware of the following: (1) law enforcement officers had observed a drone making illegal entry into the United States from Mexico by flying over the border fence nearby Agent Whalen's location; (2) the location where the drone illegally entered the United States was known to be an area used by drone-based drug smugglers; (3) Agent Whalen was able to locate and visually track the travel of the drone shortly after it crossed into the United States; (4) Agent Whalen observed the drone hover above a parking lot nearby the border fence before rapidly descending to the ground; (5) Agent Whalen observed a vehicle being driven by Mr. Hill travel at a high rate of speed through the parking lot and stop adjacent to the drone; (6) no other individuals were observed in the parking lot at that time; (7) Agent Whalen observed a package attached to the drone; (8) the appearance of the package was consistent with narcotics packaging; and (9) the above-noted vehicle was stopped in a manner such that the drone was located adjacent to the driver's door and the drone was within an arm's reach of the vehicle. With all those facts in mind, Agent Whalen conducted a stop of Mr. Hill.

The reasonable suspicion standard is not a particularly high threshold to reach. United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). An officer's reasonable suspicion must be assessed based upon the “totality of the circumstances.” Id. Here, the facts and circumstances known to Agent Whalen at the time of the stop were sufficient to support Agent Whalen's objective and particularized suspicion that Mr. Hill was engaged in criminal activity. The Motion is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Hill

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Mar 4, 2022
No. 21-CR-3109-TWR (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEANDRE LAMONT HILL, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Mar 4, 2022

Citations

No. 21-CR-3109-TWR (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022)