United States v. Ruiz.
No. 23-2027. 9/16/2024. D.N.M. Judge Baldock. Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine—Possession With Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine—Importation of Methamphetamine—Aiding and Abetting—Photo Array Identification—Reliability—Motion to Suppress.
September 16, 2024
Ruiz was traveling alone in his pickup truck when he entered the Columbus, New Mexico port of entry from Mexico. US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) officers recognized Ruiz as a regular crosser. Alvarado, the primary investigating officer, phoned his supervisor to confirm whether Ruiz’s cargo—comprising cinderblocks, rebar, and two 55-gallon drum barrels—was a “commercial load” that he would have to declare to customs. During the call, Officer Alvarado’s supervisor advised him that there was a “Be on the Lookout” for someone matching Ruiz’s name and physical description for possible narcotics trafficking. Further investigation revealed 20.8 kilograms of methamphetamine and an active GPS tracker concealed in Ruiz’s pickup truck’s spare tire. Ruiz was indicted for (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; (2) possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; and (3) importation of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. Weaver, a confidential informant, identified Ruiz as “Tire Man”—a courier with a 24-year history of concealing and transporting narcotics in spare tires—from a photo array. The government proposed to offer Weaver’s testimony at trial, and Ruiz moved to suppress Weaver’s pretrial photo array identification and his anticipated in-court identification. The district court denied the motion. Weaver identified Ruiz at trial, and a jury convicted him on all counts.
On appeal, Ruiz argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Weaver’s identification was based on a suggestive pretrial photo array. To determine when an identification based on a suggestive photo array violates a defendant’s due process rights, the court first determines whether the photo array was unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identifications were still reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Here, Weaver met with Ruiz for three separate drug transactions—including a 10-minute face-to-face conversation—and gave consistent and accurate descriptions of Ruiz before identifying him in the photo array. The Tenth Circuit did not decide the issue of suggestiveness because it determined that Weaver’s identification was sufficiently reliable under the totality of the circumstances, so there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification.
The denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed.