United States v. Nelson

Summary

We

Holdings

1. The totality of the circumstances, including proximity to the border (29 miles), the agent's extensive experience, the VACIS scan showing bundle-shaped objects, the presence of a seal on the trailer inconsistent with personal equipment, and the inconsistencies in the bill of lading, gave rise to reasonable suspicion that Nelson was engaged in illegal activity.
2. Nelson was not in custody because the questioning was brief (two minutes), occurred in a public location on the side of the highway, was non-accusatory and cooperative in tone, involved no physical restraint or handcuffs, and the agent indicated that Nelson would be free to go if the canine did not alert.
3. Border Patrol agents have authority under Brignoni-Ponce to make roving stops on the basis of reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity, not just immigration offenses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to justify the roving-patrol stop of Nelson's vehicle.
2. Whether Nelson was in custody for Miranda purposes during the two-minute questioning by Agent Stauffiger.
3. Whether Border Patrol agents have authority to conduct roving stops related to non-immigration offenses.

Disposition

affirmed