If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Tucson, Arziona criminal lawyer represented Defendant charged with conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for profit.


On April 1, 2022, Officer Robert Holguin was patrolling Highway 80 when he received a radio call about two northbound vehicles driving in tandem. (Tr. 7-8.)[1] A few minutes later, Officer Holguin encountered one of the vehicles traveling westbound along the Double Adobe Highway. (Tr. 10.) The vehicle, a Ford Expedition driven by Defendant, had a temporary license plate and “extremely dark” window tint. (Tr. 10-12.) After following the vehicle for a short distance, Officer Holguin initiated a traffic stop based on a suspected window-tint violation. (Tr. 11-12.) A second patrol officer also stopped. (Tr. 12.)

1

Officer Holguin approached the vehicle, stopping at the rear door on the driver's side. (Tr. 13.) He could not see into the vehicle, as the rear window was heavily tinted, so he asked Defendant to roll the window down. (Tr. 13.) Defendant complied. (Tr. 13.) Observing no passengers, Officer Holguin then walked up to the driver's window. (Tr. 13.)

After advising Defendant of the reason for the stop, Officer Holguin tested the vehicle's window opacity. (Tr. 13.) The windows were darker than permitted by state law, so Officer Holguin requested Defendant's driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance information. (Tr. 14.) While Defendant searched for the documents, Officer Holguin looked through the open windows and observed camouflage through a vertical gap in the second-row seat. (Tr. 14-15.) He recognized the camouflage pattern as the type commonly used by noncitizens who traverse the desert. (Tr. 14-15.) The camouflage reached about halfway up the seat, giving Officer Holguin the impression that there were camouflaged people laying on the floorboard behind the seat. (Tr. 15, 35.) Officer Holguin testified that he was able to observe the camouflage from his vantage point at the driver's window, and that no part of his body crossed into the vehicle. (Tr. 15, 19, 36-37.) Defendant maintains that Officer Holguin stuck his head through an open window. (Tr. 84-85.)

Defendant provided his driver's license, which listed an address in the Phoenix area, and the vehicle registration, but he could not find the insurance document. (Tr. 14, 18.) Defendant gave an uncertain answer about the vehicle owner, stating initially that “he didn't know who the vehicle belonged to” and then that “it was a friend's vehicle.” (Tr. 59.) Officer Holguin then had Defendant exit his vehicle and walk towards the patrol vehicle. (Tr. 16.) At this point, Officer Holguin instructed the other officer to radio dispatch and have United States Border Patrol respond to the scene. (Tr. 16.) Officer Holguin did not tell Defendant that he had observed camouflage, or that he had requested assistance from border patrol. (Tr. 16.)

Officer Holguin began filling out the ticket once he got back to his vehicle. (Tr. 18.) This took him between seven and 15 minutes. (Tr. 18-19.) Around the time he began

2

writing the ticket, he also requested a records check. (Tr. 17-18.) The check showed that Defendant's license was valid, and that the vehicle was registered to a woman out of Douglas. (Tr. 18.) Defendant waited by the front of the patrol vehicle while Officer Holguin completed these tasks. (Tr. 39.)

Border Patrol Agent Matthew Infante arrived just as Officer Holguin was finishing the ticket. (Tr. 19.) After issuing the ticket, but before Agent Infante walked up, Officer Holguin asked Defendant who was in the back seat, and Defendant responded that he was “just giving them a ride.” (Tr. 19-20.) Officer Holguin then informed Agent Infante about the camouflage and Defendant's admission. (Tr. 20.) Agent Infante looked inside the vehicle and observed two people sitting on the ground behind the second-row seat. (Tr. 70.) Upon questioning, both admitted that they lacked authority to be in the United States. (Tr. 72.) Defendant was then arrested. (Tr. 72.)...

8:1324(a)(l)(A)(v)(I), 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), and 1324(a)(l)(B)(i) Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Aliens for Profit
(1)
8:1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i) Transport Illegal Aliens for Profit
(2)

Outcome: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to Esteban Jose Medero-Velazquez: IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion to suppress (Doc. 28 ) be denied. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of this recommendation to file specific written objections with the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). The parties shall have fourteen days to file responses to any objections. No replies may be filed absent prior authorization by the district court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria S Aguilera on 8/17/22.(MYE) (Entered: 08/17/2022)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: