Read the following United States Court of Appeals case: United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006). (https://casetext.com/case/us-v-alcaraz-arellano). Write 500–700 words that

Place your order today and enjoy professional academic writing services—From simple class assignments to dissertations. Give us a chance to impress you.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Read the following United States Court of Appeals case: United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006). (https://casetext.com/case/us-v-alcaraz-arellano).

Write 500–700 words that respond to the following questions with your thoughts, ideas, and comments.  Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas.

  • Under what conditions do you think, if any, racial profiling should be clearly illegal? Explain your position.
  • Provide some analysis on how the courts determine whether racial profiling exists in cases versus cases where there is a legitimate reason for a stop. Explain.
  • Is there a legitimate reason at any stage in an investigation for racial profiling? Explain.
  • What impacts on the community do you think can pro-racial profiling policies have? Explain in detail.

Read the following United States Court of Appeals case: United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006). (https://casetext.com/case/us-v-alcaraz-arellano). Write 500–700 words that
No. 0 4-3 230 U nit e d S ta te s C ourt o f A ppeals , T e n th C ir c u it U.S. v . Alcaraz-Ar ellano 441 F .3 d 1 252 ( 1 0th C ir. 2 006) D ecid ed M ar 3 0, 2 006 N o. 0 4-3 230. M arc h 3 0, 2 006. H ART Z, C ir c u it J u dge. A ppeal fro m th e U nite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e D is tr ic t o f K an sa s, S am A . C ro w , J . * 1253 1253 M arily n M . Tru bey, Assis ta n t Fed era l Public D efe n der (D av id J. Phillip s, Fed era l Public D efe n der, w ith h er o n th e b rie f), T opek a, K S, fo r th e D efe n dan t- A ppella n t. J a m es A . B ro w n, A ssis ta n t U nite d S ta te s A tto rn ey (E ric F . M elg re n , U nite d S ta te s A tto rn ey, w ith h im o n th e brie f), Topek a, K S, fo r th e Pla in tif f – A ppelle e. B efo re H EN RY, M cK AY, an d H ART Z, C ir c u it J u dges. * 1255 1255 O n F eb ru ary 1 1 , 2 003, G era rd o A lc ara z-A re lla n o w as i n dic te d i n t h e U nite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C ourt f o r th e D is tr ic t of K an sa s * 1256 on one co unt of posse ssin g with in te n t to dis tr ib ute th re e k ilo gra m s o f c o cain e a n d o ne c o unt o f p osse ssin g w ith in te n t to d is tr ib ute o ne k ilo gra m o f h ero in . See 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 41(a )(1 ) . H e p le ad ed g uilty to th e se co nd c o unt. B efo re p le ad in g g uilty h e h ad m oved to su ppre ss ev id en ce se iz ed durin g a veh ic le se arc h afte r a tr a ff ic sto p an d, alle g in g se le ctiv e en fo rc em en t (ra cia l pro filin g), had m oved to dis m is s th e in dic tm en t. The dis tr ic t co urt d en ie d b oth m otio ns. M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s p le a a g re em en t p re se rv ed h is rig ht to a p peal th e dis tr ic t c o urt’s r u lin gs o n th e m otio ns, a n d h e n ow ap peals th ose ru lin gs. M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o’s o pen in g brie f als o ra is e d a ch alle n ge to his s e n te n ce, b ut h e la te r file d a p le ad in g w ith th is c o urt ab an donin g th e ch alle n ge. W e ex erc is e ju ris d ic tio n u nder 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 291 a n d a ff ir m . 1256 I. MOTION T O SUPPRESS A. B ack gro u nd O n F eb ru ary 9, 2003, R usse ll C ounty S herif f ‘s D ep uty Kelly Sch neid er, who was driv in g w estb ound o n I-7 0, d ete rm in ed b y ra d ar th at M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o, w ho w as driv in g eastb ound, w as d riv in g 7 7 m ph in a 7 0 m ph zo ne. D ep uty S ch neid er tu rn ed aro und to p urs u e M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o’s c ar, a g old 2 001 O ld sm obile A le ro . H e pulle d alo ngsid e th e car an d o bse rv ed tw o m en in sid e, b oth o f w hom a p peare d to b e H is p an ic . H e th en d ir e cte d M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o to sto p. M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o b ro ught h is c ar to th e s id e o f th e hig hw ay a t 2 :4 2:2 0 p .m . T he s to p w as r e co rd ed b y a v id eo re co rd er in sid e D ep uty S ch neid er’s p atr o l car. D ep uty S ch neid er e x ite d h is c ar, s to od b eh in d M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s car, an d sig nale d to Mr. A lc ara z-A re lla n o to co m e to him . M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o c o m plie d . W hen D ep uty S ch neid er a sk ed fo r h is lic en se , M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o r e tr ie v ed h is lic en se fro m his car an d gav e it to D ep uty S ch neid er. D ep uty S ch neid er th en a sk ed fo r M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s re g is tr a tio n, a n d M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o ag ain re tu rn ed to h is car, o bta in ed th e re g is tr a tio n, a n d g av e it to h im . D ep uty S ch neid er ex am in ed th e d ocu m en ts , w hic h s h ow ed th at M r. 1 Alc ara z-A re lla n o w as lic en se d to driv e in N ew Y ork a n d h ad p urc h ase d t h e c ar i n C alif o rn ia t h re e d ay s e arlie r. T he a d dre ss f o r M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o on th e re g is tr a tio n w as in C alif o rn ia . In re sp onse to D ep u ty Sch neid er’s questio ns, M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o sa id th at he liv ed in N ew Y ork , had tr a v ele d to C alif o rn ia , h ad sta y ed th ere o ne an d one-h alf d ay s, h ad p urc h ase d th e c ar, a n d w as e n ro ute back to New York . Dep uty Sch neid er o bse rv ed th at M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o ap peare d ex tr e m ely n erv ous. A t 2 :4 4:3 0 p .m . D ep uty S ch neid er r e tu rn ed to h is p atr o l car. A t 2:4 5:0 9 he in v ite d M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o in to th e p atr o l c ar, te llin g h im , ” le t’s g et y ou w here it’s w arm .” D ep uty Sch neid er th en in fo rm ed M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o th at he was w ritin g h im a w arn in g, w hic h w ould n ot c o st h im a n y m oney. W hile he w as w ritin g th e w arn in g tic k et, Dep uty Sch neid er ask ed M r. Alc ara z- A re lla n o w hen h e h ad b ought th e c ar a n d w hat h e did f o r a liv in g. M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o to ld D ep uty S ch neid er, a m ong o th er th in gs, th at h e w ork ed in la n dsc ap in g, b ut h ad n ot w ork ed f o r t w o m onth s. A t 2:4 6:3 8 p.m . D ep uty Sch n eid er ra d io ed th e dis p atc h o pera to r to v erif y M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s l ic en se . T he o pera to r re sp onded w ith th e lic en se in fo rm atio n at 2 :5 2:0 6 p .m . D urin g th at in te rv al D ep uty Sch neid er co ntin ued questio nin g M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o, a sk in g w heth er h e lik ed h is c ar, w heth er th ere w as m uch s n ow in N ew Y ork , w ho his passe n ger w as, w here his passe n ger liv ed , w hat h e ty pic ally d id d urin g th e w in te r sin ce h e had n ot w ork ed fo r a c o uple m onth s, w heth er h e ow ned th e c ar, a n d h ow m uch h e p aid fo r it. M r. * 1257 A lc ara z-A re lla n o s a id t h at h e h ad b ought t h e car f o r $ 4,0 00. 1257 D ep uty S ch neid er g av e M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o th e w arn in g tic k et an d bid him “a d io s” at 2:5 2:4 4 p.m ., 10 m in ute s afte r th e sto p. But as M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o was le av in g th e patr o l car, D ep uty S ch neid er re q ueste d p erm is sio n to a sk a fe w m ore q uestio ns. M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o a g re ed . D ep uty Sch neid er ask ed w heth er he had an y co ntr a b an d in th e car. M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o re p lie d th at h e d id n ot. D ep uty S ch neid er a sk ed to ” lo ok in ” th e car, an d M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o co nse n te d . W hile in sp ecti n g th e tr u nk, D ep uty Sch neid er n otic ed th at its flo or w as g re en ra th er th an g old , w here as, to his know le d ge, th e orig in al u nderc o atin g a lm ost a lw ay s m atc h es th e e x te rio r pain t. H e a ls o n otic ed th at th e c au lk in g a ro und th e flo or w as n ew , t h ic k , a n d w hite , a n d t h at t h e c arp et p ad din g in th e s p are -tir e c o m partm en t w as g lu ed to th e flo or, w here as in m ost cars th e carp et p ad din g c an s im ply b e p ulle d a w ay f r o m t h e f lo or. H e th en c o nducte d a ” fin ger te st” in sid e th e tr u nk, pla cin g o ne h an d o n th e in sid e o f th e tr u nk a n d one h an d u ndern eath th e c ar, a n d ta p pin g o n th e tr u nk to lis te n fo r s ig ns o f a g ap b etw een th e to p an d th e b otto m . H e c o nclu ded th at th ere w as s u ch a g ap a n d e stim ate d it to b e a b out th re e in ch es, in dic atin g a c o nceale d c o m partm en t. H e to ld M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o th at he had fo und a fa ls e c o m partm en t, a n d t h at h e w ou ld t a k e t h e c ar t o t h e sh erif f ‘s dep artm en t to be se arc h ed . The su bse q uen t s e arc h r e v eale d a h id den c o m partm en t co nta in in g th re e kilo gra m s of co cain e an d one kilo gra m o f h ero in . M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o file d a m otio n to su ppre ss th e e v id en ce se iz ed d urin g th e se arc h o f h is c ar, a rg uin g th at th e tr a ff ic sto p its e lf w as ille g al b ecau se he was not sp ee d in g, th at Dep uty S ch neid er’s su bse q uen t dete n tio n of him was ille g al b ecau se its sc o pe an d d ura tio n ex ceed ed w hat w as ju stif ie d b y th e p urp ose o f th e s to p, a n d th at D ep uty S ch neid er did no t hav e re aso nab le s u sp ic io n of crim in al activ ity to ju stif y th e questio nin g durin g th e sto p . In den yin g M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s m otio n to su ppre ss ev id en ce, th e dis tr ic t co urt ru le d th at D ep uty S ch neid er’s s to p o f M r. A lc a ra z-A re lla n o w as v alid b ecau se h e had re aso nab le su sp ic io n th at Mr. Alc ara z- A re lla n o w as sp eed in g, th at D ep uty S ch neid er’s f u rth er d ete n tio n a n d q uestio nin g o f M r. A lc ara z- 2 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) Are lla n o w as ju stif ie d by re a so nab le su sp ic io n, an d th at M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o g av e v alid c o nse n t fo r D ep uty S ch neid er t o s e arc h h is c ar. O n ap peal M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o arg ues th at D ep uty S ch neid er v io la te d t h e F ourth A m en dm en t by ask in g h im q uestio ns u nre la te d to th e in itia l p urp ose o f t h e s to p; t h at D ep u ty S ch neid er d id n ot hav e re aso nab le su sp ic io n to a sk th ese u nre la te d q uestio ns; th at he did not valid ly co nse n t to D ep uty S ch neid er’s c o ntin ued q uestio nin g o f h im a fte r re tu rn in g h is lic en se ; th at h e d id n ot v alid ly c o nse n t to D ep uty S ch neid er’s se arc h o f h is c ar; a n d th at if th e se arc h w as co nse n su al, D ep uty S ch neid er e x ceed ed t h e s c o pe o f c o nse n t. B. Analysis M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o arg ues th at Dep uty S ch neid er’s dete n tio n an d questio nin g of him v io la te d th e Fourth Am en d m en t. The Fourth A m en dm en t p ro te cts th e ” rig ht o f th e p eo ple to b e se cu re in th eir pers o ns, hou se s, pap ers , an d eff e cts , ag ain st unre aso nab le se arc h es an d se iz u re s.” U .S . C onst. A m en d. I V . A tr a ff ic s to p is a F ourth A m en dm en t se iz u re “e v en th ough th e purp ose o f th e sto p is lim ite d an d th e re su ltin g dete n tio n quite brie f.” D ela w are v. P ro use , 4 40 U .S . 648, 653 , 9 9 S .C t. 1391 , 5 9 L .E d.2 d 660 (1 979). A tr a ff ic sto p is perm is sib le under th e F ourth A m en dm en t i f ” th e o ff ic er h as a r e aso nab le a rtic u la b le su sp ic io n th at a *1258 tr a ff ic . . . vio la tio n has occu rre d or is occu rrin g.” U nite d S ta te s v . H unnic u tt, 1 35 F .3 d 1 345, 1 348 ( 1 0th C ir. 1 998). ” W hen r e v ie w in g a d is tr ic t c o urt’s d en ia l o f a m otio n to su ppre ss, w e c o nsid er th e to ta lity o f th e cir c u m sta n ces an d v ie w th e ev id en ce in th e lig ht m ost fa v ora b le to th e g overn m en t.” U nite d S ta te s v . G ord on, 168 F .3 d 1 222, 1 225 (1 0th C ir. 1 999). “W e accep t th e dis tr ic t co urt’s fa ctu al fin din gs u nle ss [th ey ] a re c le arly e rro neo us.” Id . “T he u ltim ate d ete rm in atio n o f r e aso nab le n ess . . . is a q uestio n o f l a w r e v ie w ab le d e n ovo.” Id . 1258 D ep uty S ch neid er’s in itia l sto p of M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o is n ot c h alle n ged o n a p peal; h e o bse rv ed (w ith a r a d ar d ev ic e) M r. A lc a ra z-A re lla n o d riv in g 77 m ph in a 7 0 m ph zo ne. M r. A lc ara z arg ues, h ow ev er, th at th e sto p becam e unla w fu l w hen D ep uty S ch neid er a sk ed h im q uestio ns u nre la te d to t h e p urp ose o f t h e s to p. I n U nite d S ta te s v . H olt, 2 64 F .3 d 1 215, 1 230 (1 0 th C ir. 2 001 ) (e n b an c), w e s ta te d th at th e re aso nab le n ess o f a tr a ff ic s to p dep en ds o n b oth ” th e le n gth o f th e d ete n tio n a n d th e m an ner in w hic h it is carr ie d out.” It is r e aso nab le f o r a n o ff ic er t o a sk q uestio ns a b out t h e m oto ris t’s tr a v el p la n s a n d a u th ority to o pera te th e veh ic le . U nite d S ta te s v . B ra dfo rd , 423 F .3 d 1 1 49, 11 56 (1 0th C ir. 2 00 5). A lth ough H olt h eld th at fu rth er questio n in g is ju stif ia b le only if it is r e aso nab le in re la tio n to th e in itia l p urp ose o f th e tr a ff ic s to p, H olt, 2 64 F .3 d a t 1 228 , th e sc o pe o f th is hold in g has been lim ite d by th e Supre m e Court’s d ecis io n in M ueh le r v . M en a, 544 U .S . 9 3 , 125 S .C t. 1 465 , 1 61 L .E d.2 d 2 99 ( 2 005). In M ueh le r th e S upre m e C ourt u pheld th e p olic e o ff ic ers ‘ q uestio nin g o f M s. I ris M en a, w hom th ey w ere deta in in g w hile th ey ex ecu te d a se arc h w arra n t i n t h e h o use s h e o ccu pie d ; t h e q uestio nin g re la te d to her im mig ra tio n sta tu s, a matte r u nre la te d to th e p urp ose o f th e s e arc h . I d . a t 1 471. T he co urt of ap peals had ru le d th e questio nin g unco nstitu tio nal, ap pare n tly on th e gro und th at “th e o ff ic ers w ere re q uir e d to h av e in dep en den t re aso nab le s u sp ic io n in o rd er to q uestio n M en a . . . bec au se th e questio nin g co n stitu te d a dis c re te F ourth Am en dm en t ev en t.” Id . The Supre m e Court re v ers e d . It sta te d th at “m ere polic e q uestio nin g d o es n ot co nstitu te a se iz u re ” u nder th e Fourth A m en dm en t. I d . (in te rn al quota tio n m ark s om itte d ). “E ven w hen off ic ers hav e no basis fo r su sp ectin g a p artic u la r in div id ual, th ey m ay g en era lly a sk q uestio ns o f t h at i n div id ual; a sk to ex am in e th e in div id ual’s id en tif ic atio n; an d re q uest c o nse n t to s e arc h h is o r h er lu ggag e.” Id . (in te rn al q uota tio n m ark s an d b ra ck ets o m itte d ). A s M s. M en a’s d ete n tio n w as n ot p ro lo nged b y t h e questio nin g, th e questio nin g did not cre ate an ad ditio nal se iz u re . I d . The Court an alo giz ed q uestio nin g d urin g a se arc h to p erfo rm in g a d og sn if f d urin g a tr a ff ic s to p, w hic h d oes n ot v io la te 3 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) th e F ourth A m en dm en t if it d oes n ot e x te n d th e sto p “`b ey ond th e tim e re aso nab ly re q uir e d to c o m ple te [th e sto p’s orig in al purp ose ].'” Id . (q uotin g Illin ois v. C aballe s, 5 43 U .S . 4 05 , 1 25 S .C t. 834, 837 , 1 60 L .E d.2 d 842 (2 005)). T he C ourt c o n clu ded : ” [T ]h e C ourt o f A ppeals d id n ot fin d th at th e q uestio nin g e x te n ded th e tim e M en a w as deta in ed . Thus no ad ditio nal Fourth A m en dm en t ju stif ic atio n fo r in quir in g ab out M en a’s im mig ra tio n sta tu s w as re q uir e d .” Id . at 1 471-7 2. I n lig ht o f M ueh le r, w e h av e h eld th at ” [a ]s lo ng as th e [d ep uty ‘s ] questio nin g did not ex te n d th e le n gth o f th e d ete n tio n, . . . th ere is n o F ourth A m en dm en t is su e w ith re sp ect to th e co nte n t o f t h e q uestio ns.” U nite d S ta te s v . W alla ce, 4 29 F .3 d 9 69, 9 74 ( 1 0th C ir. 2 005). A pply in g th is la w , we fir s t ad dre ss Dep uty S ch neid er’s q uestio nin g o f M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o befo re re tu rn in g h is lic en se . T his q uestio nin g c an b e d iv id ed *1259 in to th re e in te rv als : th e in iti a l en co unte r o uts id e th e c ars , th e tim e d urin g w hic h D ep uty S ch neid er w as w ritin g th e w arn in g tic k et, a n d th e tim e w hile D ep uty S ch neid er w as w aitin g fo r th e d is p atc h o pera to r to v erif y M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o’s l ic en se . D urin g t h e f ir s t i n te rv al D ep uty S ch neid er a sk ed o nly a f e w q uestio ns a b out tr a v el p la n s a n d v eh ic le o w ners h ip b efo re g oin g to h is p atr o l car to is su e a warn in g. Such lim ite d q uestio nin g is pro per, becau se an off ic er m ay ro utin ely ask ab out tr a v el pla n s an d ow ners h ip d urin g a la w fu l tr a ff ic sto p. S ee B ra dfo rd , 423 F.3 d a t 1 1 56 . 1259 D urin g th e se co nd in te rv al D ep uty Sch neid er q uestio ned M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o in th e p atr o l c ar w hile he w as w ritin g th e w arn in g tic k et. T his q uestio nin g w as n ot lim ite d to tr a v el p la n s an d ow ners h ip of th e veh ic le , but it did not ap pre cia b ly le n gth en th e d ete n tio n an d th ere fo re th e F ourth A m en dm en t re q uir e s n o ju stif ic atio n. See W alla ce, 4 29 F.3 d at 9 74 . A s M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o e n te re d th e p atr o l c ar, D ep uty S ch neid er to ld him th at he w as w ritin g a w arn in g tic k et. D ep uty Sch neid er te stif ie d at th e su ppre ssio n hearin g th at he w as w ritin g th e w arn in g tic k et w hile M r. A lc a ra z-A re lla n o w as in th e p atr o l c ar. W ritin g th e w arn in g tic k et o cc u pie d tw o m in ute s, o ne m in ute a n d 2 9 se co nds o f w hic h w as w hile M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o w as s itti n g in th e p atr o l c ar. E ven if th is ta sk m ig ht hav e been perf o rm ed slig htly fa ste r had D ep uty Sch neid er not been ask in g questio n s, th e tim e in volv ed was not “b ey ond th e tim e r e aso nab ly r e q uir e d to c o m ple te th at [ ta sk ].” C aballe s, 1 25 S .C t. a t 8 37; s e e U nite d S ta te s v. M artin , 422 F .3 d 5 97, 6 01-0 2 (7 th C ir. 2 005) (” A tr a ff ic sto p does not beco m e unre aso nab le m ere ly becau se th e off ic er ask s questio ns u nre la te d to th e in it ia l p urp ose fo r th e sto p, pro vid ed th at th ose questio ns do not unre aso nab ly e x te n d th e a m ou nt o f tim e th at th e su bje ct is d ela y ed .” ); U nite d S ta te s v . C hild s, 2 77 F.3 d 947, 949 (7 th Cir. 20 02) (e n ban c) (” q uestio ns th at do not in cre ase th e le n gth of dete n tio n ( o r t h at e x te n d i t b y o nly a b rie f t im e) d o not mak e th e cu sto dy its e lf unre aso nab le “). T here fo re , t h is q uestio nin g w as l a w fu l. A s fo r th e th ir d in te rv al, th e perio d D ep uty S ch neid er q uestio ned M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o w hile h e w as w aitin g fo r th e ra d io d is p atc h er to v erif y M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o’s lic en se (2 :4 6:3 8 p.m . th ro ugh 2 :5 2:1 6 p .m .) , t h e l ic en se c h eck i ts e lf w as p erm is sib le , s e e H olt, 2 64 F .3 d a t 1 221 ( ” [D ]u rin g a ro utin e tr a ff ic s to p th e o ff ic er m ay a sk to s e e a d riv er’s lic en se an d re g is tr a tio n an d ch eck th at th ey are valid .” ), an d th e questio nin g did not pro lo ng th e d ete n tio n w hile th e lic en se c h eck w as b ein g perfo rm ed . A s a re su lt, th e questio nin g, re g ard le ss o f th e to pic , d id n o t v io la te th e F ourth A m en dm en t. In sh ort, w e re je ct M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o’s c h alle n ges to th e q uestio nin g b efo re h is lic en se w as r e tu rn ed . T he questio nin g afte r th e re tu rn of th e lic en se , h ow ev er, m ust b e a n aly zed d if f e re n tly b ecau se it d id pro lo ng th e sto p. A fte r D ep uty Sch neid er re tu rn ed th e docu m en ta tio n to M r. Alc ara z- A re lla n o an d sa id “a d io s,” he re q ueste d p erm is sio n fro m M r. A lc ara z -A re lla n o to ask a fe w m ore q uestio ns. M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o a g re ed an d th en co nse n te d to a se arc h of his car. H e 4 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) co nte n ds th at th is questio nin g im perm is sib ly e x te n ded th e tr a ff ic sto p. W e dis a g re e. The ad ditio nal questio nin g co uld be ju stif ie d if th e en co unte r a t th is p oin t w as c o nse n su al, s e e U nite d S ta te s v. E llio tt, 1 07 F.3 d 810, 814 (1 0th C ir. 1 997), o r i f p ro lo ngatio n o f t h e s to p w as s u pporte d b y r e aso nab le s u sp ic io n, W alla ce, 4 29 F .3 d a t 9 74 . B ecau se th e dis tr ic t co urt did not ad dre ss th e possib ility of co nse n t, we co nsid er only r e aso nab le su sp ic io n. R easo nab le su sp ic io n is a “p artic u la riz ed a n d o bje ctiv e b asis fo r su sp ectin g th e pers o n sto pped of crim in al activ ity .” *1260 O rn ela s v . U nite d S ta te s, 5 17 U .S . 6 90, 6 96 , 1 1 6 S .C t. 1657 , 1 34 L.E d.2 d 911 (1 996) (in te rn al q uota tio n mark s om itte d ). It “re p re se n ts a `m in im um l e v el o f o bje ctiv e j u stif ic atio n’ w hic h i s ` c o nsid era b ly le ss th an p ro of o f w ro ngdoin g b y a p re p ondera n ce o f th e e v id en ce.'” U nite d S ta te s v. M en dez, 1 1 8 F.3 d 1426, 1431 (1 0th C ir. 1997) (q uotin g U nite d S ta te s v . S oko lo w , 490 U .S . 1 , 7 , 1 09 S .C t. 1 581 , 1 04 L .E d.2 d 1 (1 98 9).) In our vie w , Dep uty Sch neid er po sse sse d re aso nab le s u sp ic io n. 1260 A lth ough th e dis tr ic t co urt ru le d th at D ep uty S ch neid er had acq uir e d re aso nab le su sp ic io n to d eta in M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o fo r questio nin g at so m e p oin t d urin g th eir c o nvers a tio n in th e p atr o l car, w e need ad dre ss only w heth er th ere w as re aso nab le su sp ic io n when Dep uty Sch neid er re tu rn ed th e lic en se to M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o. B y th at tim e, D ep uty Sch neid er had th e fo llo w in g in fo rm atio n: M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o s a id t h at h e h ad d riv en acro ss th e co untr y fro m N ew York to C alif o rn ia fo r a one-a n d-a -h alf -d ay vis it durin g w hic h h e p urc h ase d a n ot- u nusu al u se d v eh ic le f o r $4,0 00; h e to ld D ep uty S ch neid er th at h e liv ed in N ew Y ork , b ut th e v eh ic le re g is tr a tio n sh ow ed a C alif o rn ia ad dre ss; h e w as u n em plo yed ; an d h e w as ex tr e m ely nerv ous. W e ag re e th at it w as im pla u sib le th at an unem plo yed New York er w ould in nocen tly d riv e to C alif o rn ia fr o m N ew Y ork , v is it t h ere f o r l e ss t h an t w o d ay s, p urc h ase a v eh ic le (g iv in g a Calif o rn ia ad dre ss fo r th e re g is tr a tio n), an d th en driv e back . Dep uty S ch neid er th us h ad r e aso nab le s u sp ic io n to d eta in M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o fo r fu rth er in vestig atio n afte r re tu rn in g his lic en se an d re g is tr a tio n. S ee U nite d S ta te s v . S anto s, 4 03 F .3 d 1 1 20, 1 1 29 ( 1 0th C ir. 20 05) (” Im pla u sib le tr a v el pla n s can co ntr ib ute to re aso nab le su sp ic io n.” ); U nite d S ta te s v . M cR ae, 8 1 F .3 d 1 528, 1 534-3 5 ( 1 0th C ir. 1 996) (a p pare n t co ntr a d ic tio n betw een date s on defe n dan t’s c ar r e n ta l a g re em en t a n d a lle g ed t r a v el p la n s c o n tr ib ute d to r e aso nab le s u sp ic io n); U nite d S ta te s v . K opp, 45 F .3 d 1 450, 1 453-5 4 (1 0th C ir. 1 995) (o ff ic er h ad re aso nab le s u sp ic io n to d eta in m oto ris t in part becau se he “d id not fin d it p la u sib le th at Defe n dan t would driv e fr o m C alif o rn ia to N orth C aro lin a m ere ly to ta k e a v ery d ila p id ate d s o fa t o s o m e f rie n ds” ). F in ally , M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o ch alle n ges D ep uty S ch neid er’s se arc h o f h is c ar. H e a rg ues th at h is c o nse n t w as in valid b ecau se it w as th e f r u it o f a n u nla w fu l dete n tio n. But th is arg um en t fa ils b ecau se w e hav e held th at th e dete n tio n w as la w fu l. H e als o arg ues th at his co nse n t w as in volu nta ry . B ut th e re co rd d o es n ot in dic ate th at h e arg ued v olu nta rin ess in d is tr ic t co urt, ex cep t, p erh ap s, o n th e g ro und th at h e d id n ot a d eq uate ly u nders ta n d E ng lis h , an arg um en t not ra is e d on ap peal. O rd in arily w e d o n ot ad dre ss arg um en ts n ot m ad e b elo w . U nite d S ta te s v. M oore , 2 2 F .3 d 241, 243 n. 3 (1 0th C ir. 1994) (” W e w ill not ad dre ss is su es ra is e d fo r th e fir s t tim e o n a p peal, o n w hic h n o a d eq uate r e co rd w as c re ate d b elo w .” ). T hat pra ctic e is partic u la rly ap pro pria te here , b ecau se h is fa ilu re to ra is e th e arg um en t b elo w dep riv es u s o f a n y fa ct fin din g o n th e m atte r b y th e dis tr ic t co urt. Acco rd in g ly , we will not co nsid er t h e i s su e o f v olu nta rin ess. M r. A lc a ra z-A re lla n o f u rth er a rg ues, h ow ev er, t h at ev en if th e co nse n t w as valid , th e se arc h w as ille g al becau se th e sc o pe of his co nse n t w as ex ceed ed w hen th e car w as tr a n sp orte d to th e sh erif f ‘s d ep artm en t a n d d is m an tle d . I t is n ot c le ar w heth er M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o ra is e d th is is su e in d is tr ic t c o urt. I t a p pears t h at a ll h e a rg ued w as t h at h e c o nse n te d o nly to a m ere p eek in sid e, a n d n ot 5 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) to th e s e arc h c o nducte d w hile th e c ar w as b y th e sid e o f th e h ig hw ay. B ut th e g overn m en t d oes n ot cla im th at th e is su e w as n ot p re se rv ed , s o w e w ill g iv e M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o t h e b en efit o f t h e d oubt an d a d dre ss i t. * 1261 1261 M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o m ay be co rre ct th at his c o nse n t d id n ot e x te n d to tr a n sp ortin g th e c ar to th e sh erif f ‘s d ep artm en t a n d d is m an tlin g it th ere . B ut co nse n t was unnecessa ry becau se th ese a ctio ns w ere su pporte d by pro bab le cau se . A polic e o ff ic er m ay c o nduct a w arr a n tle ss s e arc h o f an au to m obile if th ere is “p ro bab le cau se to b elie v e th at th e veh ic le co nta in s co ntr a b an d or oth er e v id en ce w hic h is su bje ct to se iz u re u nder la w .” U nite d S ta te s v. M erc a do, 307 F.3 d 1 226, 1230 (1 0th C ir. 2 002 ) (in te rn al q uota tio n m ark s om itte d ). D ep uty Sch neid er dis c o vere d in th e in itia l veh ic le se arc h th at th ere w as pro bab ly a co nceale d co m partm en t in th e car. “It is w ell e sta b lis h ed t h at e v id en ce o f a h id den c o m partm en t can co n tr ib ute to pro bab le cau se to se arc h .” U nite d S ta te s v. Ju ra do-V a lle jo , 380 F.3 d 1235, 1238 (1 0th C ir. 2 004 ) (in te rn al q uota tio n m ark s om itte d ). In Ju ra do-V a lle jo we held th at ” [w ]h eth er p ro bab le c au se to s e arc h a v eh ic le c an b e b ase d o n ev id en ce o f a h id den co m partm en t dep en ds o n tw o f a cto rs : ( 1 ) th e p ro bativ e v alu e o f th e e v id en ce — th at is , th e lik elih ood th at th ere r e ally is a hid den co m partm en t; an d (2 ) th e lik elih ood th at a veh ic le with a hid den co m partm en t w ould , in th e cir c u m sta n ces, be se cre tin g co ntr a b an d.” Id . Dep uty Sch neid er te stif ie d th at b ase d o n th e u nex pecte d c o lo r o f th e car’s u nderc o atin g ( it w as g re en , n ot g old lik e th e outs id e o f th e c ar); th e n ew th ic k , w hite c au lk in g aro und th e flo or; th e g lu in g d ow n o f th e tr u nk carp et pad din g; an d th e obse rv atio ns fr o m his ” fin ger te st,” he knew fro m his tr a in in g an d ex perie n ce t h at t h ere w as a h id d en c o m partm en t i n th e c ar. H e a ls o te stif ie d th at h e h ad fo und a b out 50 c o nceale d c o m partm en ts in v eh ic le s o ver th e co urs e of his care er an d all but one co nta in ed co ntr a b an d. The dis tr ic t co urt accep te d th is te stim ony. T his ev id en ce sa tis fie s both Ju ra do- Va lle jo f a c to rs in d ete rm in in g p ro bab le c au se . S ee id . D ep uty S ch neid er’s tr a n sp orta tio n o f th e c ar to th e s h erif f ‘s d ep artm en t a n d s u bse q uen t s e arc h w as th ere fo re la w fu l. S ee U nite d S ta te s v. Z ucco , 71 F.3 d 1 88, 1 91-9 2 ( 5 th C ir. 1 995) ( ” If s u pporte d b y pro bab le c au se , e v ery p art o f a v eh ic le w hic h m ay co nceal th e obje ct of th e se arc h may be se arc h ed .” ); s e e a ls o M erc a do, 307 F .3 d a t 1 231 (o ff ic er’s d is m an tlin g o f th e alte re d ceilin g o f a v an to se arc h hid den co m partm en t w as le g al b ecau se su pporte d b y p ro bab le c au se ). T hus, th e dis tr ic t c o urt d id n ot e rr in d en yin g M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o’s m otio n t o s u ppre ss. II. MOTION T O DISMISS A. B ack gro u nd M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o f ile d a m otio n t o d is m is s t h e in dic tm en t f o r s e le ctiv e e n fo rc em en t, a rg uin g th at D ep uty Sch neid er’s decis io n to sto p him w as b ase d , at le ast in part, on his ra ce. H e als o re q ueste d dis c o very re g ard in g se le ctiv e en fo rc em en t, se ek in g in fo rm atio n on vario us polic ie s govern in g th e R usse ll C ounty S herif f ‘s D ep artm en t, in clu din g polic ie s to guard ag ain st ra cia l p ro filin g an d d ocu m en t- re te n tio n p olic ie s; p ers o nnel file s of D ep uty Sch neid er an d an y re co rd s re g ard in g ra cia l- p ro filin g co m pla in ts a g ain st h im ; r e co rd s o f D ep uty S ch neid er’s v eh ic le s to ps f ro m t h e b eg in nin g o f 2 00 0 u ntil F eb ru ary 9 , 2003; a n d m ate ria ls r e la tin g t o D ep uty S ch neid er’s d ru g-in te rd ic tio n t r a in in g. A t th e hearin g on th e m otio n to dis m is s, th e partie s stip ula te d to ad m ittin g in to ev id en ce th e re co rd o f th e h earin g in U nite d S ta te s v. M esa – R och e, 2 88 F .S upp.2 d 1 1 72 (2 003), o n a sim ila r m otio n t o d is m is s f o r r a cia l p ro filin g. T hat h earin g fo cu se d o n a stu dy c o m mis sio ned b y th e K an sa s le g is la tu re an d re le ase d in early 2003 (th e L am berth stu dy). T he L am berth stu dy ex am in ed sto ps m ad e b y la w -e n fo rc em en t o ff ic ers in s e v era l K an sa s metr o polita n are as an d alo ng certa in s tr e tc h es o f in te rs ta te h ig hw ay in K an sa s. * 1262 T he h ig hw ay s to ps in clu ded in th e s tu dy o ccu rre d b etw een O cto ber 2 001 a n d M arc h 2 002. T he s tu dy 1262 6 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) atte m pte d to c o m pare th e p ro po rtio n o f d riv ers o f certa in ra cia l o r e th nic g ro ups sto pped b y p olic e o ff ic ers (s to p data ) to th e pro portio n of driv ers w ho b elo nged to th ose g ro ups (b en ch m ark d ata ). A m ong th e f in din gs w as th at o n I -7 0 b etw een th e C olo ra d o b ord er a n d m ile m ark er 5 0 ( n ear C olb y, K an sa s), 6.8 % of sto ps m ad e by th e K an sa s H ig hw ay Patr o l w ere of H is p an ic s, w hile th e pro portio n o f H is p an ic s t r a v elin g o n t h at s tr e tc h o f hig hw ay w as o nly 1 .8 % . M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o als o pre se n te d data r e g ard in g tr a ff ic sto ps an d arre sts b y o ff ic ers in th e Russe ll County Sherif f ‘s Dep artm en t, in clu din g ( 1 ) r e co rd s o f D ep uty S ch neid er’s s to ps, w hic h sh ow ed th at 3 3.6 9% o f th ose h e sto pped b etw een S ep te m ber 2000 an d A pril 2003 w ere H is p an ic ; an d (2 ) a re p ort sh ow in g th at durin g Ja n uary th ro ugh O cto ber 2 002, in c ase s in volv in g D ep uty S ch neid er, 5 7% o f th e p eo ple a rr e ste d f o r dru g crim es afte r bein g sto pped fo r tr a ff ic v io la tio ns w ere H is p an ic . In d is tr ic t c o urt a n d o n ap peal M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o did not co m pare th ese perc en ta g es to th ose of fe llo w off ic ers e x cep t th at at ora l arg um en t in th is co urt his c o unse l p oin te d o ut th at D ep u ty B au sk e d id n ot sto p a n y H is p an ic s i n 2 000. T he d is tr ic t co urt d en ie d M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s m otio n to dis m is s. The co urt note d th at ” [a ]lth ough [M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o’s ] m otio n is s ty le d a s a m otio n r e g ard in g s e le ctiv e p ro se cu tio n, . . . it is in fa ct a m otio n re g ard in g se le ctiv e en fo rc em en t [b ecau se it] c h alle n ges th e d ecis io n an d a ctio ns o f th e la w e n fo rc em en t o ff ic er, n ot th e ex erc is e o f d is c re tio n b y th e p ro se cu to r.” V ol. I, D oc. 7 0 a t 1 6. It ru le d th at h e d id n ot c arry h is b urd en of pro ducin g “so m e ev id en ce” of dis c rim in ato ry e ff e ct a n d d is c rim in ato ry in te n t a s re q uir e d b y U nite d S ta te s v . A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . 456, 4 68-6 9 , 1 1 6 S .C t. 1480 , 1 34 L .E d.2 d 687 (1 996). R ely in g in p art o n te stim ony a t th e M esa -R och e hearin g by D r. B ria n W ith ro w , a pro fe sso r of C rim in al Ju stic e a t W ic h ita S ta te U niv ers ity , th e dis tr ic t co urt fo und th e L am berth stu dy to be “ir re le v an t a n d u nre lia b le .” V ol. I , D oc. 7 0 a t 2 3. I t p oin te d out th at th e Russe ll County Sherif f ‘s D ep artm en t d id n ot p artic ip ate in th e stu dy an d th at D ep uty S ch neid er h ad n o t w ork ed in a n y o f th e a re as c o vere d in th e s tu dy. ( In f a ct, th e r e co rd s h ow s th at M r. A lc ara z-A re ll a n o w as sto pped a t m ile m ark er 1 88 in R usse ll C ounty , a t le ast 1 38 m ile s east of th e weste rn portio n of 1-7 0 can vasse d b y th e L am berth s tu dy, a n d m ore th an 1 60 m ile s fro m th e easte rn portio n of 1-7 0 can vasse d b y th e s tu dy.) T he c o urt s a id th at d ata r e g ard in g hig hw ay tr a v ele rs in oth er co untie s w ould be tr a n sfe ra b le to R usse ll C ounty only u nder t h e a ssu m ptio n t h at t h e p erc en ta g es o f r a cia l g ro ups i n t h e p opula tio n a n d a m ong d riv ers a re t h e sa m e in b oth lo catio ns, b ut M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o had s h ow n n o r e aso n t o m ak e s u ch a n a ssu m ptio n. It a ls o d oubte d t h e a ccu ra cy o f t h e b en ch m ark d ata in th e c o untie s s tu die d . T he c o urt d ecla re d th at ( 1 ) th e stu dy d id n ot in clu de an ap pen dix sh ow in g how th e d ata w as co lle cte d in th e fie ld , (2 ) th e sa m ple siz e w as “to o sm all to pro vid e re lia b le s ta tis tic al r e su lts ,” id . a t 2 5, a n d ( 3 ) th e s u rv ey ors ‘ a tte m pts t o d ete rm in e t h e e th n ic ity o f d riv ers w ere b ase d o n ” su bje ctiv e a n d s w if t, if n ot s p lit- s e co nd obse rv atio ns” a n d w as t h ere fo re n ot r e lia b le , i d . I n a d ditio n, th e co urt sa id th at th e sto p data w as u ntr u stw orth y becau se th e la w en fo rc em en t ag en cie s a n d th e a re as in clu ded in th e s tu dy w ere n ot se le cte d at ra n dom an d becau se th e la w en fo rc em en t o ff ic ers w ho re c o rd ed th e sto p d ata k new t h at t h eir a ctiv ity w as b ein g o bse rv ed . * 1263 1263 T he c o urt f u rth er s ta te d th at e v en if th e s tu dy w as accep te d a s r e lia b le , its r e su lts d id n ot n ecessa rily s h ow ra cia l pro filin g becau se ra cia l or eth nic g ro ups m ay n ot c o m mit tr a ff ic v io la tio ns in e x act p ro portio n to th eir re p re se n ta tio n o n th e h ig hw ay. F in ally , th e co urt sa id th at th e arre st sta tis tic s co uld not sa tis fy M r. A lc ara z -A re lla n o’s burd en u nder U nite d S ta te s v . J a m es, 2 57 F .3 d 1 1 73, 1 1 79 (1 0th Cir. 2001), to sh ow th at “`a sim ila rly – situ ate d in div id ual of an oth er ra ce co uld hav e been , b ut w as n ot, a rre ste d o r re fe rr e d fo r fe d era l 7 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) pro se cu tio n fo r th e off e n se fo r whic h th e defe n dan t w as a rre ste d a n d r e fe rr e d ,'” V ol. I , D oc. 7 0 a t 3 1 (q uotin g Ja m es, 2 57 F .3 d a t 1 1 79 ). F or th e a rre st s ta tis tic s to b e re le v an t to M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o’s case , th ey w ould h av e to sh ow “th at n on-H is p an ic s sto pped fo r tr a ff ic v io la tio ns w ere n ot d eta in ed a n d s e arc h ed , e v en if th ey d is p la y ed in dic ato rs of dru g tr a ff ic k in g, w hile sim ila rly s itu ate d H is p an ic s [ s ic ] d riv ers w ere d eta in ed a n d se arc h ed .” Id . a t 3 2. A s f o r t h e e v id en ce s p ecif ic ally r e la tin g t o D ep uty S ch neid er, th e co urt sa id th at re co rd s o f a rre sts a n d ch arg es had no bearin g on M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o’s c la im s o f s e le ctiv e sto ps. T he c o u rt a ls o fo und unre m ark ab le th e ev id en ce th at D ep uty S ch neid er sto ps H is p an ic s m ore fr e q uen tly th an o th er Russe ll County off ic ers , as Off ic er S ch neid er p atr o ls I-7 0 alm ost ex clu siv ely , w hile th e o th er o ff ic ers p atr o l th e s u rr o undin g c ity a n d co unty o f R usse ll, a n d ” th ere a re m ore H is p an ic s tr a v elin g on I-7 0 th an th ere are liv in g in th e su rro undin g c ity a n d c o unty o f R usse ll.” Id . a t 3 3- 34. The co urt decid ed th at an y co m paris o n betw een t h e H is p an ic c o m ponen t o f s to ps m ad e b y th e K an sa s H ig hw ay P atr o l o n th e 5 0-m ile s tr e tc h o f I-7 0 near C olb y (6 .8 5% ) an d th e H is p an ic c o m ponen t of sto ps m ad e by O ff ic er S ch neid er (3 3.6 9% ) w ould b e in valid b ecau se h e h ad fo und th at th e L am berth stu dy w as fa ta lly fla w ed . In s u m , th e co urt ru le d th at M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s s ta tis tic s w ere in su ff ic ie n t to s h ow d is c rim in ato ry e ff e ct. T he d is tr ic t c o urt w as a ls o u npers u ad ed th at M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o had pro duced ev id en ce of dis c rim in ato ry in te n t. T he c o urt s a id th at in o rd er to sh ow dis c rim in ato ry in te n t, M r. Alc ara z- A re lla n o must “p re se n t so m e non-s ta tis tic al ev id en ce to dem onstr a te th at D ep uty S ch neid er acte d w ith d is c rim in ato ry in te n t w hen h e s to pped d efe n dan t.” Id . at 36. It note d th at Dep uty S ch neid er ” is n ot a lle g ed to h av e e n gag ed in a n y ra cia l la n guag e or actio ns oth er th an th e sto p its e lf .” Id . at 36-3 7. T he co urt co nsid ere d th e L am berth s tu dy to b e ir re le v an t to d is c rim in ato ry in te n t b ecau se it d id n ot a tte m pt to s h ow th at th e obse rv ed la w -e n fo rc em en t o ff ic ers k new th e ra ce o f driv ers befo re m ak in g th e decis io n to sto p th em . B. Analysis M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o ap peals th e d is tr ic t co urt’s d en ia l of his se le ctiv e-e n fo rc em en t m otio n to d is m is s an d his acco m pan y in g motio n fo r dis c o very . T he “C onstitu tio n pro hib its se le ctiv e en fo rc em en t o f th e la w b ase d o n co nsid era tio ns su ch a s ra ce.” W hre n v. U nite d S ta te s, 5 17 U .S . 806, 8 13 , 1 1 6 S .C t. 1 769 , 1 35 L .E d.2 d 8 9 (1 996); s e e W ayte v . U nite d S ta te s, 4 70 U .S . 5 98, 6 08 n . 9 , 105 S .C t. 1 524 , 8 4 L .E d.2 d 5 47 (1 985) (b an o n dis c rim in ato ry la w en fo rc em en t ap plie s to th e fe d era l g overn m en t u nder th e F if th A m en dm en t) . ” R acia lly se le ctiv e la w e n fo rc e m en t v io la te s th is n atio n’s co nstitu tio nal valu es at th e most fu ndam en ta l le v el; in deed , u neq ual a p plic atio n o f crim in al la w to w hite a n d b la c k p ers o ns w as o ne of t h e c en tr a l e v ils a d dre sse d b y t h e f ra m ers o f t h e F ourte en th A m en dm en t.” M arsh all v. C olu m bia L ea R eg ‘l H osp ., 3 45 F .3 d 1 1 57, 1 1 67 (1 0th C ir. 2 003). T he S upre m e C ourt h as h eld th at a p ers o n m ak in g a s e le ctiv e-p ro se cu tio n *1264 c la im m ust e sta b lis h tw o e le m en ts : ” [1 ] th e f e d era l p ro se cu to ria l p olic y h ad a dis c rim in ato ry eff e ct an d [2 ] it was m otiv ate d by a dis c rim in ato ry purp ose .” A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . at 465 , 1 1 6 S.C t. 1480 (in te rn al q uota tio n m ark s o m it te d ). ” T o e sta b lis h a d is c rim in ato ry e ff e ct in a [ s e le ctiv e-p ro se cu tio n ] ra ce c ase , th e c la im an t m ust s h ow th at s im ila rly – situ ate d in div id uals o f a d if f e re n t ra ce w ere n ot pro se cu te d .” Id . T he e le m en ts a re e sse n tia lly th e sa m e fo r a se le ctiv e-e n fo rc em en t cla im . A defe n dan t “c h alle n gin g alle g ed ra cia l d is c rim in atio n in tr a ff ic sto ps an d arr e sts m ust p re se n t ev id en ce fro m whic h a ju ry co uld r e aso nab ly in fe r th at th e la w e n fo rc em en t o ff ic ia ls in volv ed were m otiv ate d by a dis c rim in ato ry p urp ose an d th eir actio ns had a dis c rim in ato ry e ff e ct.” M arsh all, 3 45 F .3 d a t 1 1 68 . T o s a ti s fy th e 1264 8 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) dis c rim in ato ry -e ff e ct ele m en t, one w ho cla im s se le ctiv e e n fo rc em en t ” m ust . . . m ak e a c re d ib le s h ow in g th at a sim ila rly -s itu ate d in div id ual of an oth er ra ce co uld hav e been , but was not, [ s to pped o r] a rre ste d . . . f o r th e o ff e n se f o r w hic h th e defe n dan t w as [s to pped or] arr e ste d . . . .” J a m es, 2 57 F .3 d a t 1 1 79 . A nd th e d is c rim in ato ry – purp ose ele m en t re q uir e s a sh ow in g th at d is c rim in ato ry in te n t w as a ” m otiv atin g fa cto r in th e d ecis io n” to e n fo rc e th e c rim in al la w a g ain st th e defe n dan t. M arsh all, 3 45 F.3 d at 11 68 . D is c rim in ato ry in te n t can be sh ow n by eith er d ir e ct or cir c u m sta n tia l ev id en ce. S ee Unite d S ta te s v . D eb erry, 4 30 F .3 d 1 294, 1 299 (1 0th C ir. 2 005). T he s ta n dard fo r p ro of o f a s e le ctiv e-p ro se cu tio n cla im is a ” d em an din g” o ne, A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . at 463 , 1 1 6 S.C t. 1480 , becau se a se le ctiv e- p ro se cu tio n c la im an t is r e q uestin g th e ju dic ia ry to e x erc is e p ow er o ver a “sp ecia l p ro vin ce” o f th e ex ecu tiv e b ra n ch , i d . a t 4 64, 1 1 6 S .C t. 1 480 , a n d ju dic ia l re v ie w of pro se cu to ria l decis io ns co uld ” c h ill la w en fo rc em en t by su bje ctin g th e pro se cu to r’s motiv es an d decis io nm ak in g to o uts id e in quir y , a n d m ay u nderm in e p ro se cu to ria l eff e ctiv en ess by re v ealin g th e Govern m en t’s e n fo rc em en t p olic y,” id . at 4 65, 1 1 6 S .C t. 1 480 (in te rn al quota tio n mark s om itte d ). Sim ila r cau tio n is re q uir e d in re v ie w in g a cla im of se le ctiv e la w en fo rc em en t. “[C ]h arg es of ra cia l d is c rim in atio n . . . m ay be easy to m ak e an d dif f ic u lt to d is p ro ve.” M arsh all, 3 45 F .3 d a t 1 1 67 . E xecu tiv e-b ra n ch off ic ia ls posse ss bro ad d is c re tio n in d ete rm in in g w hen to m ak e a tr a ff ic s to p o r a n a rre st. S ee id . J u dic ia l in te rfe re n ce w ith la w -e n fo rc em en t d is c re tio n m ig ht “in duce p olic e o ff ic ers to pro te ct th em se lv es ag ain st fa ls e a ccu sa tio ns in w ay s th at a re c o unte rp ro ductiv e to f a ir a n d e ff e ctiv e e n fo rc em en t o f th e la w s,” s u ch as b y d ir e ctin g la w -e n fo rc em en t re so urc es aw ay fro m m in ority n eig hborh oods. I d . A cco rd in gly , t h e sta n dard fo r pro vin g a se le ctiv e-e n fo rc em en t cla im sh ould be, as w ith se le ctiv e-p ro se cu tio n cla im s, ” a d em an din g o ne.” M arsh all, 3 45 F .3 d a t 1 1 67 (q uotin g A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . at 4 63 , 1 1 6 S .C t. 1 480 ). F or sim ila r re aso ns d is c o very is lim ite d . A s w e sta te d in Ja m es, ” th e s h ow in g n ecessa ry to o b ta in d is c o very f o r a s e le ctiv e p ro se c u tio n d efe n se m ust `its e lf b e a sig nif ic an t b arrie r to th e litig atio n o f in su bsta n tia l cla im s.'” J a m es, 2 57 F.3 d at 11 78 (q uotin g A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . at 4 64 , 1 1 6 S .C t. 1 480 ). A lth ough defe n dan ts se ek in g dis c o very n eed n ot e sta b lis h a p rim a fa cie c ase o f s e le ctiv e pro se cu tio n, i d . at 11 78, th ey m ust sa tis fy a “rig oro us sta n dard ,” A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . a t 4 68 , 11 6 S.C t. 1480 . They must pro duce “so m e ev id en ce” of both dis c rim in ato ry eff e ct an d dis c rim in ato ry in te n t. A rm str o ng, 517 U .S . a t 4 70 , 11 6 S .C t. 1 480 ; a cco rd U nite d S ta te s v . B ass, 5 36 U .S . 8 62, 8 63 , 1 22 S .C t. 2 389 , 1 53 L .E d.2 d 7 69 (2 002) (p er cu ria m ). In Ja m es w e ap plie d th is s ta n dard to a c la im o f s e le ctiv e e n fo rc em en t. S ee id . a t 1 1 78-8 1. * 1265 1265 W e re v ie w fo r ab use of dis c re tio n th e dis tr ic t co urt’s g ra n t o r d en ia l o f a m otio n to d is m is s a n in dic tm en t. U nite d Sta te s v. Furm an, 31 F.3 d 1034, 1 037 ( 1 0 th C ir. 1 994). I n Ja m es, 2 57 F .3 d a t 1 1 78 , we re v ie w ed a se le ctiv e-p ro se cu tio n dis c o very o rd er d e n ovo ra th er th an fo r a b use o f dis c re tio n. W e dis tin guis h ed F urm an on th e gro unds th at th e d efe n dan t in Ja m es w as se ek in g dis c o very r a th er th an d is m is sa l a n d th at r e v ie w o f th e d is c o very o rd er in volv ed o nly a d ete rm in atio n of t h e l e g al a d eq uacy o f t h e e v id en ce r a th er t h an a d ete rm in atio n of fa cts . S ee id . at 11 7 8. W hen , how ev er, as in th is case , th e d ecis io n re g ard in g dis c o very pro perly re sts on fa ct- fin din g, we re v ie w th e fin din gs under th e cle arly -e rr o neo us sta n dard . C f. E nglis h v . C ody, 2 41 F .3 d 1 279, 1 282 (1 0th C ir. 2 001) ( w e r e v ie w a ” d is tr ic t c o urt’s l e g al co nclu sio ns d e n ovo a n d its f a ctu al f in din gs u nder th e c le arly e rro neo us s ta n dard .” ( in te rn al q uota tio n m ark s o m itte d )). 9 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) Mr. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s cla im s fa il o n th e in te n t pro ng o f th e te sts f o r d is m is sa l a n d d is c o very . H e atte m pts to pro ve in te n t th ro ugh sta tis tic al ev id en ce o f a d is c rim in ato ry e ff e ct. H e a rg ues t h at th e “sh eer dis p arity ” betw een th e perc en ta g e of H is p an ic s on th e ro ad an d th e perc en ta g e of H is p an ic s sto pp ed sh ow s th at D ep uty S ch neid er ta rg ets th em . A plt. B r. at 40. S ee In t’l B hd. of Tea m ste rs v. U nite d S ta te s, 4 31 U .S . 3 24, 3 39 n . 20, 9 7 S.C t. 1843 , 5 2 L.E d.2 d 396 (1 977) (” S ta tis tic s s h ow in g r a cia l o r e th nic im bala n ce a re p ro bativ e . . . b ecau se su ch im bala n ce is o fte n a te llta le s ig n o f p urp ose fu l d is c rim in atio n”). H ere , h ow ev er, w e hav e dir e ct ev id en ce of D ep uty S ch neid er’s m otiv atio n in sto p pin g M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o. A t th e h earin g o n th e m otio n to d is m is s, D ep uty S ch neid er te stif ie d th at h e h ad d ecid ed to s to p M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o as so on as he had d ete rm in ed b y ra d ar th at h e w as sp eed in g. T he dis tr ic t co urt accep te d Dep uty Sch neid er’s t e stim ony, s ta tin g: ” [D ep uty S ch neid er] n otic ed a g old c a r tr a v elin g e astb ound, a n d d ete rm in ed b y ra d ar th at it w as g oin g 7 7 m .p .h . in a 7 0 m .p .h . zo ne. D ep uty S ch neid er r o utin ely s to ps c ars g oin g th at sp eed . . . an d d ecid ed to sto p th is o ne as w ell.” V ol. I, D oc. 7 0 a t 1 . M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o co nte n ds th at D ep uty S ch neid er d oes n ot m ak e a d ecis io n base d so le ly on sp eed in g but als o c o nsid ers th e driv er’s eth nic ity . He poin ts to D ep uty S ch neid er’s p ra ctic e o f p ullin g a lo ngsid e th e v eh ic le to lo ok in sid e b efo re e x ecu tin g a s to p, th us allo w in g h im to d ete rm in e th e ra ce o f th e in div id uals in sid e. He als o note s th e dis p ro portio nate n um ber o f H is p an ic d riv ers th at D ep uty S ch neid er s to ps — 3 4% o f h is s to ps in a tw o-y ear p erio d w ere o f H is p an ic s. T his e v id en ce h as su bsta n tia l ap peal. But we defe r to th e fa ctf in der’s e v alu atio n o f c re d ib ility . S ee A nderso n v. C ity o f B esse m er C ity , 4 70 U .S . 5 64, 5 75 , 1 05 S .C t. 1504 , 8 4 L.E d.2 d 518 (1 985). A nd th e dis tr ic t c o urt’s f in din g t h at t h e d ecis io n t o s to p M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s car w as m ad e b efo re D ep uty S ch neid er d ro ve u p to it f o re c lo se s a n y p ossib ility th at h e m ad e th e d ecis io n to sto p b ase d o n M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s e th nic ity . M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o does n ot a rg ue th at D ep uty S ch neid er c o uld h av e dete rm in ed M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o’s e th nic ity a t th e tim e o f th e r a d ar r e ad in g, w hen th e v eh ic le s w ere a p pro ach in g on e an oth er at so m eth in g lik e 140 m ph. B ecau se th e d is tr ic t c o urt m ad e a fa ctu al fin din g th at D ep uty S ch neid er m ad e th e d ecis io n to sto p M r. Alc ara z-A re lla n o befo re know in g his e th nic ity , he can not sa tis fy th e dis c rim in ato ry – in te n t pro ng of th e A rm str o ng sta n dard fo r obta in in g d is c o very o r d is m is sa l o n th e b asis o f se le ctiv e en fo rc em en t. Perh ap s Mr. Alc ara z- A re lla n o c o uld h av e c o nvin ced th e d is tr ic t c o urt o th erw is e if h e w ere a b le to o bta in th e re q ueste d d is c o very . B ut h e d oes n ot a rg ue o n a p peal h ow dis c o very w ould h elp in th at re g ard , a n d it is n ot ap pare n t to us. T he data on D ep uty S ch neid er p re se n te d to us by M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o *1266 in dic ate s th at he alr e ad y posse sse s th e re le v an t in fo rm atio n re g ard in g D ep uty Sch neid er’s sto ps an d arre sts . T he d is tr ic t co urt d id n ot ab use its d is c re tio n i n d en yin g d is c o very . 1266 1 1 A lth ough dir e ct ev id en ce esta b lis h es th at D ep uty S ch neid er w as not m otiv ate d by ra ce in h is d ecis io n to sto p M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o, th e sto p sta tis tic s th at Mr. A lc ara z-A re lla n o has pre se n te d are d is tu rb in g. W e assu m e th at in fu tu re in vestig atio ns f e d era l p ro se cu to rs w ill ta k e th e u tm ost c are to a ssu re th em se lv es th at ra cia l p ro filin g is n ot lu rk in g b eh in d s u ch sta tis tic s. H av in g h eld th at M r. A lc ara z-A re lla n o fa ile d to p re se n t ev id en ce sa tis fy in g A rm str o ng’s d is c rim in ato ry -in te n t p ro ng, w e n eed n ot a d dre ss w heth er th e ev id en ce he pre se n te d sa tis fie d th e dis c rim in ato ry -e ff e ct p ro ng. S ee J a m es, 2 57 F .3 d at 1 1 81 . III. CONCLUSION D ep uty Sch neid er’s dete n tio n of M r. A lc ara z- A re lla n o a n d h is s e arc h o f th e c ar d id n ot v io la te th e F ourth A m en dm en t. T here fo re , w e A FFIR M th e d is tr ic t c o urt’s d en ia l o f t h e m otio n t o s u ppre ss 10 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) ev id en ce. A ls o , M r. A lc ara z -A re lla n o has not sa tis fie d h is b urd en to p re se n t so m e e v id en ce o f dis c rim in ato ry in te n t, s o w e A FFIR M th e o rd er o f th e d is tr ic t c o urt d en yin g h is m otio ns to d is m is s a n d f o r d is c o very . 11 U.S. v. Alcaraz-Arellano 441 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006)

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now
Writerbay.net

When writing your assignment, we aim to help you get an A, not just beat the deadline.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper