Drug trafficker deflated when drugs were found in spare tire

UNITED STATES V. RUIZ, 2024 WL 4194467 (10th Cir. 2024)

Sergio Ruiz lived in Columbus, New Mexico, not far from a border crossing between the United States and Mexico. He drove over the border nearly every day. When he went across with a load of construction materials in his pickup truck bed, a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officer diverted Ruiz to a secondary checkpoint to determine whether his cargo might be a “commercial load” that should be declared to customs.

At the secondary checkpoint, an X-ray examination revealed an abnormality in his spare tire. When officers cut open the spare tire, they found 20.8 kilograms of methamphetamine and an active GPS tracker. Ruiz told officers he left his truck overnight at a hardware store in Mexico to have the cinder blocks loaded in the bed. Ruiz was arrested and charged with importation and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

Ruiz claimed to know nothing about the hidden drugs. A confidential informant (CI) testified he knew Ruiz as “Señor de Llanta,” or “Tire Man,” from whom he had purchased a spare tire containing methamphetamine three times earlier in the year. Eric Weaver, the CI, had conversed with Tire Man during one of the transactions and had seen him from a close distance during the other two. Weaver had been arrested just after his third drug purchase from Tire Man. While interviewing Weaver, an agent showed him a six-person photo array and told him a suspect’s photo may or may not be in the array. Weaver identified Ruiz in the photo lineup.

Prior to his trial, Ruiz asked the trial court to suppress the photo array identification as well as the informant’s anticipated in-court identification of Ruiz. Though the defendant claimed the photo array was impermissibly suggestive, the trial court denied Ruiz’s motion to suppress the identification. In addition to the photo array, Weaver had multiple opportunities to observe Ruiz closely and he gave agents consistent and accurate descriptions of him. A jury convicted Ruiz on all charges, and he appealed.

The appellate court considered whether the photo array was unduly suggestive. The court concluded even if the photo array was suggestive, the informant’s identification was reliable. The Supreme Court instructed courts to consider the following factors when assessing whether a photo array was reliable (Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)) “(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the suspect during the crime, (2) the witness’s level of attention during the crime, (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the suspect, (4) the level of certainty the witness demonstrated during the array, and (5) the time lapse between the crime and the array.”

The appellate court held, “we need not decide whether the photo array procedure was unduly suggestive because we agree with the district court that Weaver’s identification was sufficiently reliable under the Biggers factors to dispel any risk of misidentification.” Weaver had multiple encounters with Ruiz, paid close attention to his appearance, provided accurate descriptions and expressed confidence in his identification.

Officers in agencies that subscribe to Lexipol policies can avoid or mitigate challenges to photo array identification procedures by heeding the direction found in Lexipol’s Eyewitness Identification policy. Also, check out this article, “How Not to Present a Photo Lineup,” for best practice guidance regarding photo array identification.

Read more Ken Wallentine case reviews here.

This article was featured in Lexipol’s Xiphos newsletter, a monthly legal-focused law enforcement newsletter authored by Ken Wallentine. Subscriptions are free for public safety officers, educators and public attorneys. Subscribe here!