Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
NOV 18 2002
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RONNIE PALMER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; JOE
WILLIAMS, Warden, Lea County
Correctional Facility,
No. 02-2060
D.C. No. CIV-01-574 MV/LFG
(D. New Mexico)
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Id.
N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-31-22(A)(1), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his
motion to suppress certain evidence obtained as a result of a border checkpoint
detention. In state court, as in the federal proceedings, petitioner contended first,
that Border Patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging his
detention at the checkpoint (after determining he was a United States citizen) and
second, that the search of the vehicle he was towing exceeded the scope of
consent because the agents let air out of the tires, thereby detecting marijuana
odor inside those tires.
As noted, the state courts addressed petitioners claims on the merits,
determining that the agents had reasonable suspicion to justify his detention by
moving him to a secondary area for further investigation. The state courts further
determined that petitioners general consent to search both the vehicle he was
driving and the one he was towing gave agents the authority to conduct a search
broad enough to encompass releasing a small amount of air from the tires.
The district court correctly determined that the state courts holdings did
not meet the strict standards under
Terry v. Ohio ,
392 U.S. 1 (1968), i.e., whether the officers action was justified at its inception,
and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which
-3-
petitioners case included the fact that he did not know who had rented the
U-Haul he was driving, nor did he supply documentation for either vehicle in his
possession. He also opened the encounter with the agents by immediately using
profanity, which the agents thought was suspicious, and he was carrying a small
amount of luggage for a relatively long car trip.
The state courts also agreed with the government that petitioners general
consent to the vehicle search included the right to inspect the tires. This does not
constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). Moreover, petitioner had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate his search and seizure claims in state court, therefore
barring him from obtaining habeas relief on this ground under
Stone v. Powell ,
-4-
Accordingly, for these and the reasons stated in the magistrate judges
findings and recommended disposition filed November 13, 2001, we DENY
petitioners request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-5-