United States v Padilla-Esparza

Padilla-Esparza appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held there was reasonable suspicion that Padilla-Esparza was involved in currency or drug smuggling as his truck had a custom compartment which a drug dog alerted on, his inability to give details about money he failed to declare, evidence of spending patterns not consistent with claimed income and frequent travel to and from Mexico. It held that a second stop doe minutes after Padilla-Esparza was allowed to leave the scene of the first stop was supported by reasonable suspicion as the first stop terminates after the officers mistakenly believed they stopped the wrong truck, there was no search and no questioning, and reasonable suspicion remained after the first stop.