United States of America v. Christian Jesus Ruiz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTIAN JESUS RUIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30002
D.C. No.
6:17-cr-00007-SEH-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,*** Judge.
FILED
MAR 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case was suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States
Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Christian Jesus Ruiz appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence. Ruiz challenges law enforcement officers’ probable cause for
his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
“We review de novo motions to suppress, and any factual findings made at
the suppression hearing for clear error.” United States v. Negrete-Gonzales, 966
F.2d 1277, 1282 (9th Cir. 1992). “To determine whether an officer had probable
cause to arrest an individual, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and
then decide ‘whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an
objectively reasonable police officer, amount to’ probable cause.” Maryland v.
Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,
696 (1996)). Probable cause “deals with probabilities and depends on the totality
of the circumstances.” Id.
A de novo examination of the events leading up to the arrest begins when an
informant provided information regarding his involvement in methamphetamine
trafficking and surrendered over $400,000 in cash obtained from unlawful drug
transactions. The informant identified his supplier, arranged to purchase $140,000
of methamphetamine from the supplier, and described the vehicle likely to be used
by the supplier and his associates. The informant also told officers that the
supplier frequently conducted drug transactions with armed guards.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Officers identified the vehicle in which the supplier traveled for this drug
transaction by matching the informant’s vehicle description to location data from
the supplier’s cell phone, officers’ observations, and contemporaneous information
regarding the supplier’s state border crossing from the informant. Police stopped
the vehicle and arrested both occupants. Ruiz was the driver of that vehicle. After
Ruiz and the supplier’s arrest, both persons independently gave consent for officers
to search the vehicle. The search revealed nine kilograms of methamphetamine,
two handguns, and a money counter. The district court found that officers had
probable cause to arrest Ruiz and the supplier.
There was probable cause to arrest Ruiz under the totality of the
circumstances. Officers knew that the vehicle driven by Ruiz was being used for
drug trafficking, and that the supplier was planning to exchange a significant
quantity of illegal drugs in exchange for $140,000. Due to the informant’s
information that the supplier traveled with armed guards, the quantity of illegal
drugs involved, and the amount of cash involved in the transaction planned by the
informant and the supplier, it was reasonable to believe that Ruiz, as the driver,
was engaged in criminal activity. See Pringle, 540 U.S. at 373.
Ruiz’s motion to suppress evidence was properly denied. See id. at 371.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --