United States v. Hernandez-Lopez (761 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, filed April 28, 2010 (Doc. 21) (“Motion”). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on August 13, 2010. The primary issues are: (i) whether United States Border Patrol Agent Rodolfo Gutierrez, Jr. had reasonable suspicion to stop the Dodge sedan in which Defendant Roberto Javier Hernandez-Lopez was a passenger; and (ii) whether Gutierrez was justified in detaining Hernandez-Lopez. The Court grants Hernandez-Lopez’ Motion, because it finds Gutierrez did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the Dodge sedan in which Hernandez-Lopez was a passenger.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Court to state its essential findings on the record when deciding a motion that involves factual issues. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(d) (“When factual issues are involved in deciding a [pretrial] motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record.”). The findings of fact in this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall serve as the Court’s essential findings for purposes of rule 12(d). The Court makes these findings under the authority of rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires a judge to decide preliminary questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, including the legality of a search or seizure and the voluntariness of an individual’s confession or consent to search. See United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d 1263, 1269-70 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916, 103 S.Ct. 1898, 77 L.Ed.2d 286 (1983). In deciding such preliminary questions, the other rules of evidence, except those with respect to privileges, do not bind the Court. See Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). Thus, the Court may consider hearsay in ruling on a motion to suppress. See United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d at 1269.

1. Border Patrol agents have jurisdiction to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, codified in Title 8 of the United States Code, and the Controlled Substances Act, codified in sections of Title 21. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357; 8 CFR § 287.8(c)(2)(i); Transcript of Hearing at 55:13-56:2 (taken August 13, 2010) (Cairns, Gutierrez) (“Tr.”); id. at 118:7-11 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 127:19-128:6 (Cairns, Mechem).

2. Some motorists are aware that Border Patrol agents do not issue citations for speeding or other traffic violations. See Tr. at 61:14-25 (Gutierrez); id. at 101:11-13 (Pori, Gutierrez).

3. Vehicles traveling east Interstate 10 from California and Arizona may not encounter a Border Patrol checkpoint until reaching the checkpoints at Deming, Las Cruces, Hatch, or Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. See id. 139:5-142:13 (Cairns, Mechem).

4. Interstate 25 is a major artery for traffic bound from Juarez, Mexico to parts north in the United States. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security Form, Event No. TCN1002000006 at 2 (dated February 13, 2010), filed April 28, 2010 (Doc. 21-1) (“Gutierrez’ Report”).

5. 1-25 is a corridor for smugglers of contraband, illegal aliens, smugglers of illegal aliens, and the law-abiding, motoring public. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 57:10-12 (Gutierrez).

6. The vast majority of people traveling on I-25 are United States citizens who are, at the time of their travels, law abiding. See Response at 6 (conceding this fact); Motion at 9-10; Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 57:10-12 (Gutierrez).

7. Gutierrez has been a Border Patrol Agent for three years and has participated in arrests involving illegal aliens, including approximately twenty arrests on I-25. See Tr. at 57:22-58:6 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 93:11-14 (Pori, Gutierrez).

8. On February 13, 2010, Gutierrez was on roving patrol in his marked Border Patrol vehicle monitoring traffic in the north bound lane of 1-25 near Truth or Consequences. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 56:3-22 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 61:12 (Gutierrez).

9. The area which Gutierrez was patrolling was within 100 air-miles of the international border with Mexico. See Tr. at 186:18-23 (Cairns, Mechem).

10. Gutierrez was parked on a berm observing traffic beside I-25 at approximately mile marker 67. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 59:17-19 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 60:17-22 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

11. The berm is concealed from approaching traffic. See Tr. at 128:23-129:19 (Cairns, Mechem)

12. Drivers were unable to see the Border Patrol unit “until the last minute [when a driver would] see the Border Patrol agent sitting there when [the driver] c[a]me around the corner.” Id. at 129:3-4 (Mechem).

13. Gutierrez had been on patrol for approximately two hours and had observed hundreds of cars pass by when, at approximately 12:15 p.m., he noticed a Dodge four-door sedan, bearing a New Mexico license plate, pass his location. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 59:17-19 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 60:17-22 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 81:13-82:5 (Pori, Gutierrez).

14. The Dodge sedan was not heavily loaded. See Tr. at 106:1-3 (Pori, Gutierrez).

15. “A Dodge sedan is not the type of vehicle frequently used by smugglers because of its size, [and] the size of its gas tank....” Response at 8. Accord Motion at 10; Tr. at 196:6-11 (Cairns).

16. As the Dodge sedan passed his location, Gutierrez observed the occupants for a few seconds with his naked eyes. See Tr. at 89:17-90:1 (Pori, Gutierrez).

17. The two occupants seated in the front seat looked straight ahead and sat upright as they passed Gutierrez. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 60:22-61:2 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 62:6-13 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

18. Gutierrez found this behavior suspicious, because most motorists would usually acknowledge his presence, and some would wave at him as they passed. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 61:9-17 (Cairns, Gutierrez) (“I was in marked Border Patrol unit and usually as people pass my location usually acknowledge my presence. Some wave at me some don’t .... ”); id. at 82:6-8 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 84:15-22 (Pori, Gutierrez).

19. Gutierrez also found this behavior suspicious, because most motorists usually have a relaxed posture or a bit of a slouch. See Tr. at 87:22-19 (Pori, Gutierrez).

20. Gutierrez did not stop all of the vehicles of people who do not wave at him. See id. at 84:23-24 (Pori, Gutierrez).

21. Gutierrez did not stop the Dodge sedan because the occupants failed wave at him. See id. at 85:7 (Gutierrez) (“I did not perform the stop for that reason.”).

22. Gutierrez left his observation position to follow the Dodge sedan on I-25. See id. at 63:5-9 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

23. As Gutierrez “got closer to the vehicle” in the same lane, but more than two car lengths behind the Dodge sedan, the Dodge sedan wavered on the road, swerving between the lanes and crossing over the fog line. Tr. at 63:10-17 (Cairns, Gutierrez). See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 104:5-11 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 131:24-132:5 (Cairns, Mechem).

24. When Gutierrez first caught up with the Dodge sedan, the Dodge sedan was in the right lane, and Gutierrez was in the left passing lane. See Tr. at 97:13-99:21 (Pori, Gutierrez).

25. Gutierrez came within a car length of the Dodge sedan, at which time the Dodge sedan reduced its speed as though the driver wished the Border Patrol agent to pass. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 65:20-25 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 97:13-99:21 (Pori, Gutierrez).

26. Gutierrez did not pass the Dodge sedan, but decelerated in the fast lane until the Dodge sedan was sufficiently far in front of him that Gutierrez was able to pull behind it, and then he changed lanes to fall in behind the Dodge sedan in the slow lane. See Tr. 99:6-23 (Pori, Gutierrez).

27. From the time Gutierrez caught up with the Dodge sedan until he stopped it, he trailed the Dodge sedan by one or two car lengths. See id. at 65:14-17 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 95:18-96:17 (Pori, Gutierrez).

28. Safe driving standards provide that drivers should follow no closer than one car length for every ten miles-per-hour at which they are traveling. See id. at 96:18-97:12 (Pori, Gutierrez).

29. The Dodge sedan was traveling approximately seventy-five miles-per-hour when Gutierrez was following dangerously close behind it. See id. at 88:20-89:9 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 132:12-13 (Mechem).

30. As he followed the Dodge sedan, Gutierrez ran a registration check, a stolen-vehicle check, and a seventy-two-hour-lane check on the vehicle to see of the Dodge sedan had crossed the border in the previous 72 hours. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 66:6-11 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 91:14-17 (Pori, Gutierrez).

31. Gutierrez discovered that the Dodge sedan was not stolen, that it had not crossed the international border within the last seventy hours, and that it was registered to Misty and/or Edelberto Hernandez from Deming. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 66:12-15 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 91:23-93:2 (Pori, Gutierrez).

32. Gutierrez’ experience leads him to believe that Deming is a major staging area for illegal aliens entering the United States, and he was “a little suspicious” of the vehicle being registered to a Deming address. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 66:21-67:2 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 67:12-25 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 93:8-10 (Pori, Gutierrez).

33. Gutierrez acknowledges that many areas in the southern part of New Mexico are major smuggling routes, but he is not suspicious of every vehicle originating from New Mexico’s southern region. See Tr. at 93:19-95:1 (Pori, Gutierrez).

34. Gutierrez had “no information about recent apprehensions of aliens in the Truth or Consequences area,” or recent illegal border crossings in the area. Response at 7. Accord Motion at 10; Tr. at 196:4-6 (Cairns).

35. As Gutierrez followed the Dodge sedan, he passed Border Patrol Agent Thomas Owen Mechem, Jr., who, while on a roving patrol, was on the edge of an overpass above I-25 at mile marker 71. See Tr. at 130:5-13 (Cairns, Mechem); id. at 131:1-13 (Cairns, Mechem).

36. Mechem first overheard Gutierrez’ radio traffic inquiring about the Dodge sedan and then observed Gutierrez following the Dodge sedan. See id. at 130:13-18 (Cairns, Mechem); id. at 131:1-13 (Cairns, Mechem).

37. Mechem entered the interstate, and followed behind Gutierrez. See id. at 131:15-16 (Cairns, Mechem).

38. With Gutierrez trailing two car lengths behind it, the Dodge sedan pulled into the fast lane to pass another vehicle on the road. See id. at 64:1-65:13 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 66:1-5 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 100:2-7 (Pori, Gutierrez).

39. When the Dodge sedan moved to the fast lane to pass the other vehicle, the rear of the Dodge sedan made a wide movement, which suggested to Gutierrez and Mechem that the driver did not have total control of the Dodge sedan because the driver was monitoring Gutierrez. See id. at 132:9-18 (Cairns, Mechem).

40. Once the Dodge sedan began to overtake the car it was passing, Gutierrez pulled into the fast lane behind the Dodge sedan. See id. 100:5-13 (Pori, Gutierrez).

41. When Gutierrez pulled into the fast lane behind the Dodge sedan, the Dodge sedan finished passing the other vehicle, and then quickly changed lanes in front of the vehicle it had just passed, leading Gutierrez to believe the driver of the Dodge sedan was continuing to monitor him. See id. at 64:1-65:13 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 66:1-5 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

42. Under New Mexico law, drivers must yield to emergency vehicles. See id. at 100:19-21 (Pori, Gutierrez).

43. After Gutierrez and the Dodge sedan had both passed the other vehicle, Gutierrez again pulled in behind the Dodge sedan in the slow lane and continued to follow within one or two car lengths. See id. at 102:20-103:1 (Pori, Gutierrez).

44. Gutierrez activated his lights and sirens, and initiated a traffic stop to investigate the occupants of the Dodge sedan. See id. at 70:21-23 (Cairns, Gutierrez); 132:19-22 (Cairns, Mechem).

45. Gutierrez stopped the Dodge sedan at approximately mile marker 74 or 75, less than 100 air miles from the international border. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 70:24-25 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 132:19-133:3 (Cairns, Mechem); id. at 186:8-23 (Cairns, Mechem).

46. Gutierrez and Mechem approached the passenger side of the Dodge sedan. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 71:6-8 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 133:9-13 (Cairns, Mechem).

47. Gutierrez asked both people inside the Dodge sedan about their citizenship. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 71:6-18 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 106:20-23 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 110:4-5 (Pori, Gutierrez).

48. Both the driver, Juan Hernandez, and the passenger, Hernandez-Lopez, told Gutierrez that they were United States citizens, because they had been born in the United States. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 72:1-4 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 107:1-5 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 117:24-118:1 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 134:20-21 (Cairns, Mechem).

49. Both Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez spoke English. See Tr. at 72:5-14 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 134:19-20 (Cairns, Mechem).

50. Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez acted nervous, both avoided eye contact, Hernandez mumbled his words, and Hernandez-Lopez gripped his seat and moved uncomfortably. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 72:23-73:11 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 123:20-23 (Cairns, Mechem).

51. Gutierrez asked both Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez about their travel plans. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 73:12-14 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 110:8-9 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 134:6-8 (Cairns, Mechem).

52. Hernandez told Gutierrez that he was going to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to see his sick mother. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 73:16-17 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 110:12-16 (Pori, Gutierrez).

53. Hernandez also stated that he had encountered Hernandez-Lopez at a gas station a few hours earlier and that HernandezALopez had asked Hernandez for a ride to Albuquerque. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 110:17-20 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 135:15-17 (Cairns, Mechem).

54. Hernandez-Lopez told Gutierrez that he was going to Albuquerque to party. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 73:18-20 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 110:12-16 (Pori, Gutierrez).

55. Gutierrez had not separated Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez, so each heard the other’s answer. See Tr. at 111:1-14 (Pori, Gutierrez).

56. The inconsistent travel objectives struck Gutierrez as odd, but he does not recall if he inquired further. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 73:21-25 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 110:24-111:1 (Pori, Gutierrez).

57. Mechem received permission from Hernandez to search the trunk of the Dodge sedan, but found nothing in the trunk. See Tr. at 134:15-135:5 (Cairns, Mechem).

58. Gutierrez then asked Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez for identification. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 74:10 (Gutierrez); id. at 108:17-19 (Pori, Gutierrez); id. at 136:11-12 (Cairns, Mechem).

59. Hernandez produced a New Mexico driver’s license. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 74:11-13 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 108:22-23 (Pori, Gutierrez).

60. Hernandez-Lopez had no identification. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2; Tr. at 74:11-17 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

61. Gutierrez found Hernandez-Lopez’ lack of identification unusual and suspicious, because most United States citizens carry identification. See Tr. at 75:15-22 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

62. Gutierrez does not escort every passenger without identification to a Border Patrol station for further investigation. See id. at 111:25-112:3 (Pori, Gutierrez).

63. Hernandez-Lopez told Gutierrez that his name was Robert Lopez-Bautista and that his birth date was June 21, 1985. See Gutierrez’ Report at 2-3; Tr. at 74:17-22 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 114:8-115:11 (Pori, Gutierrez).

64. Gutierrez contacted his radio dispatcher out of the El Paso Sector and gave the dispatcher the biographical information that he had received from Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez aka Lopez-Bautista, requesting immigration checks, warrants checks, and criminal history checks. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 75:25-76:4 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

65. The information that Gutierrez received from the dispatcher indicated that Hernandez was a citizen of the United States of America. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 137:4-5 (Cairns, Mechem); id. at 153:8-9 (Pori, Mechem).

66. The dispatcher reported that neither Hernandez nor Hernandez-Lopez aka Lopez-Bautista had any outstanding warrants. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 116:11-13 (Pori, Gutierrez).

67. The database returned no information as to Hernandez-Lopez aka Lopez-Bautista. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 76:5-6 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 137:10-11 (Cairns, Mechem); id. at 153:10-16 (Pori, Mechem).

68. The dispatcher told Gutierrez that “it was possible” Hernandez-Lopez aka Lopez-Bautista might have immigration documents. Gutierrez’ Report at 3. See Tr. at 76:5-8 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 113:17-114:7 (Pori, Gutierrez).

69. If a person was a naturalized citizen, the dispatcher would report that the person has immigration documents. See Tr. at 76:16-77:5 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 78:24-79:2 (Pori, Gutierrez).

70. If a person was a United States citizen born in the United States and had a passport, the dispatcher would report that the person has immigration documents. See Tr. at 113:4-5 (Pori, Gutierrez).

71. Mechem found this lack of information on Hernandez-Lopez aka Lopez-Bautista to be unusual, as Hernandez-Lopez had informed Gutierrez that he was a citizen of the United States and, as such, there would have likely been some information returned on him in response to Gutierrez’ inquiry. See Tr. at 137:10-14 (Cairns, Mechem).

72. Mechem suspected that Hernandez-Lopez had given a false name, which indicated to Mechem that Hernandez-Lopez was illegally present in the United States or had arrest warrants pending for him. See Tr. at 137:10-14 (Cairns, Me-chem).

73. Gutierrez decided to take both Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez to the Truth or Consequences Border Patrol station for further investigation. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 117:3-6 (Pori, Gutierrez).

74. Gutierrez told Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez to come with him to the Truth or Consequences Border Patrol station so that he could collect Hernandez-Lopez’ finger prints and confirm his identity. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 77:6-13 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 138:24-25 (Cairns, Mechem).

75. Gutierrez directed Hernandez-Lopez to exit the Dodge sedan and enter his marked Border Patrol vehicle. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3.

76. After exiting the Dodge sedan, Hernandez-Lopez admitted to Gutierrez that he was illegally present in the United States. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 77:19-23 (Cairns, Gutierrez); id. at 138:24-25 (Cairns, Mechem).

77. Gutierrez arrested Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez, and transported them to the Truth or Consequences Border Patrol station for questioning. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 77:24-78:6 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

78. Based on Hernandez-Lopez’ fingerprints, the IDENT/IAFIS system identified him as Javier Hernandez-Lopez, a person who had previously committed crimes in the United States and who has been deported from the United States. See Gutierrez’ Report at 3; Tr. at 78:6-12 (Cairns, Gutierrez).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 24, 2010, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Hernandez-Lopez with one count of re-entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). See Doc. 11. On April 28, 2010, Hernandez-Lopez filed his Motion to Suppress, seeking to suppress all of the evidence obtained by the Border Patrol following what he contends was his unlawful and excessive detention on February 13, 2010. In particular, Hernandez-Lopez seeks to suppress incriminating statements about his nationality, his fingerprints, and the resulting match between his fingerprints and his immigration A-file and IAFIS information. He argues that Gutierrez lacked reasonable suspicion to justify stopping the Dodge sedan in which he was riding as a passenger. Hernandez-Lopez contends that the only “credible reason why Agent Gutierrez stopped the Dodge Sedan was because two, younger Mexican-American men were seated inside.” Motion at 9. Hernandez-Lopez argues that the stop amounted to an “unlawful ‘fishing expedition’ by the Border Patrol Agent.” Id. at 9. In the alternative, Hernandez-Lopez argues that, if Gutierrez had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop, the resulting detention and search still violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because Gutierrez’ investigative detention greatly exceeded the scope of the initial stop. See Motion at 12. Hernandez-Lopez further asserts that Gutierrez arrested him without probable cause when Gutierrez directed him to go with Gutierrez to the Truth or Consequences Border Patrol station. See id. at 12. Hernandez-Lopez moves the Court to suppress all of the information that law enforcement officers obtained following his detention and arrest on February 13, 2010.

On May 24, 2010, the United States filed the United States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. See Doc. 29. The United States argues that the stop and detention were justified. The United States contends that, while the reasons Gutierrez gives for stopping the Dodge sedan do not establish reasonable suspicion individually, when taken together — under the totality of the circumstances — Gutierrez’ justifications for suspecting Hernandez and Hernandez-Lopez of criminal activity amount to reasonable suspicion under the factors the Supreme Court of the United States established in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). The United States relies primarily on Hernandez’ behavior to establish reasonable suspicion, in particular his being nervousness and his monitoring of Gutierrez. The United States further contends that the scope of the stop did not exceed the basis for the stop. On June 18, 2010, Hernandez-Lopez filed the Defendant’s Reply to the Government’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, reasserting that the stop and detention violated the Fourth Amendment. See Doc. 33. Hernandez-Lopez argues that the driver’s nervousness and monitoring of Gutierrez are insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.

At the August 13, 2010 evidentiary hearing, Hernandez-Lopez conceded that the United States need only prove reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop, and not reasonable suspicion that the Dodge sedan was transporting illegal aliens. See Tr. at 171:20-172:11 (Court, Pori). The United States conceded that Gutierrez must have had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that is within the jurisdiction of the Border Patrol. See id. at 177:4-10 (Cairns); id. at 181:22-25 (Cairns). The United States further conceded that the Border Patrol has no jurisdiction to enforce the New Mexico traffic code. See Tr. at 177:20-21 (Cairns); id. at 181:25-182:4 (Cairns). In particular, the United States stated that the Border Patrol cannot “stop someone who is driving under the influence of alcohol or somebody who’s driving recklessly.” Id. at 182:6-7 (Cairns).

At the hearing, the United States also conceded that, of the “observations that the officers made, none of them in and of themselves would rise to the level of reasonable suspicion,” but argued that the observations establish reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. Tr. at 192:5-11 (Cairns). The United States conceded that Gutierrez had no evidence of recent border crossings. See id. at 196:4-6 (Cairns). The United States further conceded that nothing about the aspects of the Dodge sedan supported establishing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See id. at 196:6-11 (Cairns).

FOURTH-AMENDMENT LAW REGARDING REASONABLE SUSPICION

Consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, Border Patrol agents on roving patrol are permitted “to stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the occupants are involved in criminal activity. United States v. Cantu, 87 F.3d 1118, 1120 (10th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 906, 117 S.Ct. 265, 136 L.Ed.2d 190 (1996) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574). Reasonable suspicion does “not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Rather, “reasonable suspicion represents a ‘minimum level of objective justification.’ ” United States v. Mendez, 118 F.3d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)).

A Border Patrol agent may stop a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion, without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, within “a reasonable distance” from the International Border. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 877-78, 95 S.Ct. 2574 (reconciling 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2) with the Fourth Amendment). Federal regulations define “reasonable distance” as, inter alia, 100 miles from the border. 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2). See United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d 1454, 1458 n. 4 (10th Cir.1997). When determining whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car a reasonable distance from the border, agents may consider any number of factors, including:

(1) [The] characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is encountered; (2) the proximity of the area to the border; (3) the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road; (4) the previous experience of the agent with alien traffic; (5) information about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) the driver’s behavior, including any obvious attempts to evade officers; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as a station wagon with concealed compartments; and (8) the appearance that the vehicle is heavily loaded.

United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216, 1220 (10th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Monsisvais, 907 F.2d 987, 990 (10th Cir.1990); citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884-85, 95 S.Ct. 2574). “[T]he totality of the circumstances — the whole picture — must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). “In all situations the officer is entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 885, 95 S.Ct. 2574. Accord United States v. Cantu, 87 F.3d at 1121. Courts gives due deference to a Border Patrol agent’s judgment. See United States v. De la Cruz-Tapia, 162 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir.1998).

‘When evaluating an officer’s decision to stop a vehicle, a court may not engage in a ‘sort of divide-and-eonquer analysis’ by evaluating and rejecting each factor in isolation.” United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220 (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 267, 122 S.Ct. 744; United States v. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d 1127, 1130 (10th Cir.2003)). Factors that, by themselves, may be “consistent with innocent travel” may collectively amount to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274-75, 122 S.Ct. 744 (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581).

1. Characteristics of the Area in Which the Vehicle Is Encountered.

In United States v. Madroza-Acosta, 221 Fed.Appx. 756 (10th Cir.2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit expressed skepticism of contentions that a place is a “source and destination point for illegal aliens” is a factor courts should consider in determining whether a state police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop van suspected of transporting illegal aliens. 221 Fed.Appx. at 759 n. 1. The Tenth Circuit stated that, “[t]o the extent that law enforcement officials seem primed to begin identifying ‘known illegal alien communities’ this type of evidence appears to be of minimal, if any, evidentiary value.” 221 Fed.Appx. at 759 n. 1. See Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) (stating that conduct or circumstances that “describe a very large category of presumably innocent travelers” is insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion).

2. The Proximity of the Area to the Border.

“While the Supreme Court has cautioned that ‘roads near the border carry not only aliens seeking to enter the country illegally, but a large volume of legitimate traffic as well,’ proximity to the border may be considered as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.” United States v. Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 882, 95 S.Ct. 2574). The Tenth Circuit has stated that the significance of the proximity to the border declines the farther one travels from the border, and the Tenth Circuit provided guidance that stops within fifty miles contribute to establishing reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Mendez, 181 Fed.Appx. 754, 757 (10th Cir.2006) (“Obviously, the closer the stop occurs to the border, the more weight we accord to this factor.... A distance of fifty miles or less has routinely been held sufficiently close to the border to contribute to a finding of reasonable suspicion.”). See Quintana-Garcia, 343 F.3d at 1272 (finding support from a proximity of fifty to sixty miles from the border); United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1458 n. 4, 1460 (finding support from a proximity of forty-five miles from the border); United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 25 F.3d 1481, 1485 (10th Cir.1994) (finding support from a proximity of sixty miles from the border); United States v. Venzor-Castillo, 991 F.2d 634, 635, 639 (10th Cir.1993) (holding an agent lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop 235 miles from border). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit uses a measure of fifty miles to limit the significance of the factor. See United States v. Morales, 191 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir.1999) (“[T]he proximity of the stop to the border is the ‘paramount factor’ to consider; and ... this factor ‘is missing’ if the stop is, as here, more than 50 miles from the border.” (citation omitted)).

3. The Driver’s Behavior, Including Any Obvious Attempts to Evade Officers.

“The driver’s behavior may be relevant, as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers can support a reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574 (citing United States v. Larios-Montes, 500 F.2d 941 (9th Cir.1974); Duprez v. United States, 435 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir.1970)). In United States v. Zambrano, 76 Fed.Appx. 848 (10th Cir.2003), the Tenth Circuit candidly acknowledged that a defendant’s assertion “that ‘reactive behavior’ can be described so broadly as to be meaningless .... ha[s] some resonance,” stating:

Indeed, the behavior descriptions sometime appear contradictory from case to case. An officer’s suspicion is aroused: when a subject looks at him carefully or refuses to look at him; when a subject drives exactly at the speed limit or drives too slowly; when a subject appears too nervous or too nonchalant. But we recognize the dynamic that well trained and experienced officers bring to the process, and hence, require that their suspicions be reasonable and articulable, not necessarily universal or profound. And, we rely in large measure on the trial judge to separate the sincere from the contrived.

76 Fed.Appx. at 851 n. 3.

a. Reacting to Law Enforcement Officers.

“[A] person’s reaction to the presence of law enforcement officers can legitimately trigger suspicion.” United States v. Zambrano, 76 Fed.Appx. at 850. When occupants of the car “exhibit ‘surprised or scared’ facial expressions, widen their eyes, look back to watch the Border Patrol vehicle go by, return to looking straight forward with both hands gripping the steering wheel, look a second time, and then stare straight forward again,” the Tenth Circuit has found such behavior to provide some support establishing reasonable suspicion. United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1457-58. The Tenth Circuit has stated, however, that it takes “an uncomfortable stretch to believe [an] agent possessed ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing’ ” based on an individual’s “driving ten miles per hour below the posted speed limit[,] .... appearing] nervous, looking at [an] agent’s car several times in the rear view mirror, ... gripping the steering wheel tightly” while a Border Patrol agent “followfs] closely behind,” and then failing to acknowledge an agent’s vehicle as it passes. United States v. Zambrano, 76 Fed.Appx. at 851 (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (finding reasonable suspicion because, among others things, the vehicle had passed the border without being searched and the agent had intelligence that highway was being used by drug cartels because the Border Patrol checkpoint was closed for construction)).

The Fifth Circuit has asserted that “repeatedly looking into a rearview mirror is not suspicious conduct when it is the result of an officer’s actions, for instance, if the patrol car is ‘tailgating’ the vehicle.... ” United States v. Vega, 254 F.3d 70, at *4 (5th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Jones, 149 F.3d 364, 370-71 (5th Cir.1998)). In United States v. Jones, the Fifth Circuit asserted whatever support for establishing reasonable suspicion may come from a driver’s swerving because he is monitoring a Border Patrol agent following him is “destroyed” if an agent’s conduct induces the driver’s reactive behavior. 149 F.3d at 370.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated that “ ‘[i]t is perfectly understandable that swerving within one’s own lane of traffic would not support reasonable suspicion of smuggling, which has nothing to do with impairment,’ but would support reasonable suspicion that the driver was impaired.” United States v. Palos-Marquez, 591 F.3d 1272, 1278 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Fenandez-Castillo, 324 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.2003)).

b. Nervousness.

“While a person’s nervous behavior may be relevant, we are wary of the objective suspicion supplied by generic claims that a Defendant was nervous or exhibited nervous behavior after being confronted by law enforcement officials .... ” United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1461 (quoting United States v. Peters, 10 F.3d 1517, 1521 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616, 621 n. 4 (10th Cir.1992))). The Tenth Circuit has “held consistently that nervousness is ‘of limited significance’ in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists.” United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d at 1268 (quoting United States v. Wald, 216 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir.2000))). “Nervousness is of limited value in assessing reasonable suspicion for two reasons.” United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d at 1147. It is common for most citizens— “whether innocent or guilty — to exhibit signs of nervousness when confronted by a law enforcement officer.” United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 948 (10th Cir.1997). See United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1127 (10th Cir.2005) (“[N]ervousness is a sufficiently common — indeed natural— reaction to confrontation with the police that unless it is unusually severe or persistent, or accompanied by other, more probative, grounds for reasonable suspicion, it is of limited significance in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Further, it is natural for a motorist to become more agitated as a stop is prolonged, and particularly when the officer seems skeptical or suspicious. See id. at 1128-29 (“For a motorist to become more nervous as the questioning becomes more prolonged and skeptical is not unnatural.”). As the Tenth Circuit stated in United States v. Bloom, 975 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir.1992): “Nothing in the record indicates whether [a Border Patrol agent] had any prior knowledge of Defendant, so we do not understand how [the agent] would know whether Defendant was acting nervous and excited or whether he was merely acting in his normal manner. Rather, Defendant’s appearance to [the agent] is nothing more than an inchoate suspicion or hunch.” 975 F.2d 1447, 1458 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Extreme and persistent nervousness, however, “is entitled to somewhat more weight.” United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir.2000). See United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d at 1268. In United States v. Santos, the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant’s “changing the topic from his travel plans to the weather, swallowing hard, licking his lips, which were quivering, and nervously stroking the top edge of the head liner of the patrol car with his hand” was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. 403 F.3d at 1127. The Tenth Circuit stated:

In any event, we hold that the degree of nervousness found by the district court, while not inconsequential, is insufficient to be given much weight in the reasonable suspicion calculus. In undertaking this analysis, we bear in mind that the officer (and not the court) was present at the encounter, and the officer (and not the court) has the training and experience to evaluate and compare the reactions of motorists to questioning. We therefore give Trooper Peech’s assessment the “due weight” to which it is entitled under the Supreme Court’s precedents. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273-74, 122 S.Ct. 744; Ornelas [v. United States], 517 U.S. [690,] 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657 [134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)]. But neither Trooper Peech nor the district court described Mr. Santos’s nervousness as extreme, extraordinary, or prolonged. According to Trooper Peech, Mr. Santos’s hand shook visibly when handing over his license and registration early in the stop. Mr. Santos appeared to relax, however, during the first part of his interview in Trooper Peech’s car, only to become increasingly nervous as the interview increased in length and the officer questioned him more pointedly about his story. For a motorist to become more nervous as the questioning becomes more prolonged and skeptical is not unnatural. Such behavior falls short of the “extreme nervousness [that] did not dissipate throughout the entire stop” that led us to credit the finding of reasonable suspicion in Williams, 271 F.3d at 1269.

403 F.3d at 1128-29.

c. Driving Lawfully.

Careful, lawful driving gives little support to establishing reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Peters, 10 F.3d at 1522 (“[W]e fail to see the nexus between careful driving and illegal conduct.”)- “[P]assengers sinking down in an apparent effort to avoid detection ... is suspicious conduct not clearly susceptible to unsuspicious interpretations, unlike passengers merely avoiding eye contact, turning their heads away from a light, or shielding their eyes.” United States v. Barbee, 968 F.2d 1026, 1028 (10th Cir.1992). “[Cjautious driving of a rented moving truck, whose drivers are often inexperienced with the operation of large vehicles, cannot standing alone support a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.” 10 F.3d at 1522. A Border Patrol agent’s assertion that a driver was “was visibly nervous” based on the driver’s “gripping the wheel tightly and looking straight ahead at the road” does not establish reasonable suspicion. 10 F.3d at 1522.

FOURTH-AMENDMENT LAW REGARDING PROBABLE CAUSE

An arrest, “characterized by highly intrusive or lengthy search or detention,” must be supported by probable cause. Oliver v. Woods, 209 F.3d 1179, 1185 (10th Cir.2000). See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). “Probable cause to arrest exists only when the ‘facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.’ ” United States v. Valenzuela, 365 F.3d 892, 896-97 (10th Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633, 639 (10th Cir.2001); citing Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959)). Although “[p]robable cause does not require facts sufficient for a finding of guilt ..., it does require more than mere suspicion.” United States v. Morris, 247 F.3d 1080, 1088 (10th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has made the following distinction between reasonable suspicion, which is sufficient for an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and probable cause, which is required before an arrest can be made:

Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).

Probable cause is measured against an objective standard. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). “The subjective belief of an individual officer as to whether there was probable cause for making an arrest is not dispositive.” United States v. Valenzuela, 365 F.3d at 896-97 (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 507, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); United States. v. Treto-Haro, 287 F.3d 1000, 1006 (10th Cir.2002)). Thus, the primary consideration is “whether a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant based on the information possessed by the arresting officer.” Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

RELEVANT LAW ON THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

When evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the government will be prohibited from using that evidence in a criminal prosecution of that person. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (“Under this rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.”) (citations omitted). In addition, a defendant may also suppress any other evidence deemed to be the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” because it is evidence which was discovered as a direct result of the unlawful law enforcement activity. United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (10th Cir.2006). To suppress evidence that was derived following unlawful activity, the defendant must show that there is a factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence. See United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d at 1109; United States v. Nava-Ramirez, 210 F.3d 1128, 1131 (10th Cir.2000).

For the exclusionary rule to apply, the defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, a constitutional violation, and a causal nexus between the violation and the evidence sought to be excluded. See United States v. Torres-Castro, 470 F.3d 992, 999 (10th Cir.2006). Once the defendant makes this showing, if the prosecutor still desires to proffer the challenged evidence, the burden shifts to the prosecution to establish that some exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See United States v. Torres-Castro, 470 F.3d at 999.

ANALYSIS

Hernandez-Lopez argues that Gutierrez’ stop of the Dodge sedan offended the Fourth Amendment because the agent lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Hernandez-Lopez also argues in the alternative that the scope of the investigatory stop exceeded any reasonable suspicion Gutierrez may have had. The United States responds that Gutierrez’ stop of the Dodge sedan did not offend the Fourth Amendment, because it was based on reasonable suspicion that the Dodge sedan was transporting illegal aliens, and Gutierrez’ detention of Hernandez-Lopez was reasonable because Gutierrez’ suspicion was not dispelled. The Court concludes that, under the totality of the circumstances, Gutierrez did not have reasonable suspicion to justify stopping the Dodge sedan, and the Court will therefore suppress the evidence that came from the stop.

I. GUTIERREZ STOPPED THE DODGE SEDAN WITHIN 100 AIR-MILES OF THE BORDER.

The parties dispute whether Gutierrez stopped the Dodge sedan in which Hernandez-Lopez was a passenger within 100 air-miles of the border. A Border Patrol agent may stop a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion, without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, within “a reasonable distance” from the International Border. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). Federal regulations define “reasonable distance” as, among other things, 100 miles from the border. 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2). See United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1459 n. 4.

The United States argues that the stop occurred within 100 air miles of the international border. In his Motion, Hernandez-Lopez argues that the stop occurred slightly more than one hundred miles from the border. See Motion at 9. In his Reply, Hernandez-Lopez conceded that the stop occurred within 100 air miles from the border. See Reply at 9. At the hearing, however, Hernandez-Lopez stated that he did not concede the stop occurred with 100 air miles of the border. See Tr. at 210:11—13 (Pori).

Mile marker 75 falls approximately ninety-two air miles from the U.S.-Mexican border. See http://www.gmap-pedometer. com (last visited November 17, 2010). “We take judicial notice of this distance.” Citizens for Peace in Space v. City of Colorado Springs, 477 F.3d at 1218 n. 2 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), (c); Pearson v. United States, 150 F.2d 219, 221 (10th Cir.1945); Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc., 735 F.2d 763, 773 (3d Cir.1984); http://www. gmap-pedometer.com) (taking judicial notice of distance). See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), (c) (“A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not,” of a fact “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is ... capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”).

II. GUTIERREZ’ STOP OF THE DODGE SEDAN WAS NOT BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.

Gutierrez lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the Dodge sedan in which Hernandez-Lopez was a passenger. Hernandez-Lopez argues that Gutierrez’ stop of the Dodge sedan offended the Fourth Amendment, because Gutierrez had no objectively reasonable justification for stopping the Dodge sedan in which Hernandez-Lopez was riding as a passenger. Hernandez-Lopez contends that Gutierrez had no credible, reliable information to justify a reasonable belief that the vehicle and its occupants were involved in any criminal activity, and that Gutierrez based his decision to stop the Dodge sedan on the ethnicity of its occupants. The United States contends that Gutierrez’ stop of the Dodge sedan was based on reasonable suspicion that the Dodge sedan was engaged in criminal activity.

Because he was on a roving patrol within 100 air miles of the border, Gutierrez must have had reasonable suspicion to stop the Dodge sedan, i.e., he must have been “aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the occupants were involved in criminal activity. United States v. Cantu, 87 F.3d at 1120 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574). Gutierrez is “entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 885, 95 S.Ct. 2574. See United States v. Cantu, 87 F.3d at 1121. The Court gives Gutierrez’ judgment due deference. See United States v. De la Cruz-Tapia, 162 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir.1998).

Gutierrez may consider any number of factors in establishing reasonable suspicion to stop the Dodge sedan, including:

(1) [The] characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is encountered; (2) the proximity of the area to the border; (3) the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road; (4) the previous experience of the agent with alien traffic; (5) information about recent illegal border crossings in the area; (6) the driver’s behavior, including any obvious attempts to evade officers; (7) aspects of the vehicle, such as a station wagon with concealed compartments; and (8) the appearance that the vehicle is heavily loaded.

United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220 (quoting United States v. Monsisvais, 907 F.2d at 990; citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884-85, 95 S.Ct. 2574). The Court must consider “the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture” in determining whether Gutierrez had a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the [Dodge sedan] of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690. The Court must not, “[w]hen evaluating an officer’s decision to stop a vehicle, ... engage in a ‘sort of divide-and-conquer analysis’ by evaluating and rejecting each factor in isolation.” United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220 (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 267, 122 S.Ct. 744; United States v. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d at 1130). Factors that, by themselves, may be “consistent with innocent travel” may collectively amount to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274-75, 122 S.Ct. 744 (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581).

A. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA.

Hernandez-Lopez argues that “[t]here is nothing about the location of the stop which is entitled to deference in assessing Agent Gutierrez’ reasonable suspicion.” Motion at 9. Hernandez-Lopez asserts that I-25 is the main North/South highway for travel in the State of New Mexico. The location of the stop is between the Albuquerque-Santa Fe region and the cities of Las Cruces and El Paso, in an area more than forty miles north of the I-25 fixed Border Patrol checkpoint. The area where the stop took place is characterized by heavy commercial and leisure vehicle traffic, and numerous traveler’s services, including gas stations, restaurants, and stores. Finally, Hernandez-Lopez contends, it is important to note that the stop occurred in an area where thousands of cars travel every day, and therefore that Hernandez-Lopez was traveling on a portion of northbound I-25 cannot provide reasonable suspicion for the stop. See id. at 9-10.

While Hernandez-Lopez emphasizes the banal aspects of I-25, the United States points to its seedier side. The United States contends that I-25 is a major corridor of travel for smugglers of contraband, illegal aliens, smugglers of illegal aliens, and that the interstate is the primary artery for illegal traffic bound from Juarez, Mexico, to parts north in the United States. The United States concedes, however, “that the vast majority of people traveling on Interstate 25 are law-abiding citizens of the United States.” Response at 6.

In United States v. Madroza-Acosta, 221 Fed.Appx. 756 (10th Cir.2007), the Tenth Circuit expressed skepticism about an argument that a place is a “source and destination point for illegal aliens” was a factor that the court should consider in determining whether a state police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a van suspected of transporting illegal aliens. 221 Fed.Appx. at 759 n. 1. The Tenth Circuit stated that “[t]o the extent that law enforcement officials seem primed to begin identifying ‘known illegal alien communities’ this type of evidence appears to be of minimal, if any, evidentiary value.” 221 Fed.Appx. at 759 n. 1. The Tenth Circuit asserted that “[t]his is particularly true because so many geographical locations have been found to fall within the category of ‘known drug source.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). Similarly, many roads in New Mexico have been found to be known corridors for smugglers and illegal aliens. See, e.g., United States v. Holguin-Chavez, 279 Fed.Appx. 668, 670 (10th Cir.2008) (New Mexico State Highway 9); United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes, 214 Fed.Appx. 809, 810 (10th Cir.2007) (New Mexico State Highway 9); United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1218 (I—10, I-25, New Mexico State Highway 26); United States v. Juarez-Torres, 441 F.Supp.2d 1108, 1109 (10th Cir.2006) (New Mexico State Highway 40); United States v. Mendez, 181 Fed.Appx. 754, 757 (10th Cir.2006) (New Mexico State Highway 8); United States v. Pacheco-Espinosa, 121 Fed.Appx. 352, 353-54 (10th Cir.2005) (New Mexico State Highway 171, New Mexico State Highway 181, New Mexico State Highway 195); United States v. Valenzuela, 365 F.3d at 897 (New Mexico State Highway 11, I-10); United States v. Quintana-Garcia, 343 F.3d at 1268 (New Mexico State Highway 26); United States v. Diaz-Borjas, 188 F.3d 519, at *1 (10th Cir.1999) (I—10); United States v. Pena-Hernandez, 182 F.3d 934, at *1 (10th Cir.1999) (New Mexico State Highway 9); United States v. Barbee, 968 F.2d at 1029 (New Mexico State Highway 52); United States v. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d at 1131 (U.S. Highway 54); United States v. Huereque-Mercado, 132 F.3d 43, at *1 (10th Cir.1997) (New Mexico State Highway 11); United States v. Doyle, 129 F.3d 1372, 1374 (10th Cir.1997) (New Mexico State Highway 11); United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1460 (New Mexico State Highway 180).

Moreover, I-25 is a major artery for traffic in New Mexico — the state’s only north/south interstate. I-25 has two Border Patrol checkpoints for northbound traffic, one south and one north of where Gutierrez stopped the Dodge sedan, see Tr. at 141:16-25 (Cairns, Mechem), and the record provides no evidence whether either or both of the checkpoints were open or closed on the day of the stop; most likely one — the one north of Las Cruces— was open, and the one at Truth or Consequences closed. Because the United States concedes “that the vast majority of people traveling on Interstate 25 are law-abiding citizens of the United States,” Response at 6, the Court concludes that driving on I-25 contributes some — but not much — to establishing a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). See Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. at 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752 (stating that conduct or circumstances that “describe a very large category of presumably innocent travelers” is insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion). On the other hand, because the United States has checkpoints on I-25, and because it has a standing concern about traffic on that road, the Court does not believe that factor is zero. In sum, alone the factor is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion, but with other factors, might contribute to the total considerations supporting a finding of reasonable suspicion.

B. THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE AREA TO THE BORDER.

The United States argues that the stop occurred within 100 air miles of the border and that “[t]he close proximity to the border lessen the United States’ burden in proving that the stop was based on a reasonable suspicion that the people inside the Dodge sedan were illegally present in the United States.” Response at 6 (citing United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1462 (stating that a stop “reasonably near” the border is a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances leading to an officer’s reasonable suspicion)).

“While the Supreme Court has cautioned that ‘roads near the border carry not only aliens seeking to enter the country illegally, but a large volume of legitimate traffic as well,’ proximity to the border may be considered as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.” United States v. Diaz-Juarez, 299 F.3d at 1142 (quoting Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 882, 95 S.Ct. 2574). The Tenth Circuit has stated that the significance of the proximity to the border declines the farther one travels from the border, providing a rough guide of fifty miles as being sufficiently close to support establishing reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Mendez, 181 Fed.Appx. at 757 (“Obviously, the closer the stop occurs to the border, the more weight we accord to this factor.... A distance of fifty miles or less has routinely been held sufficiently close to the border to contribute to a finding of reasonable suspicion.”); Quintanar-Garcia, 343 F.3d at 1272 (finding support in a proximity of fifty to sixty miles from the border); United States v. Barron-Cabrera, 119 F.3d at 1458 n. 4, 1460 (finding support in a proximity of forty-five miles from the border); United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 25 F.3d at 1485 (finding support in a proximity of sixty miles from the border); United States v. Venzor-Castillo, 991 F.2d at 635, 639 (holding agent lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop 235 miles from border). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit uses a measure of fifty miles to limit the significance of the factor. See United States v. Morales, 191 F.3d at 606 (“[T]he proximity of the stop to the border is the ‘paramount factor’ to consider; and that this factor ‘is missing’ if the stop is, as here, more than 50 miles from the border.” (citation omitted)).

In United States v. Venzor-Castillo, the Tenth Circuit stated::

When a person is traveling -within our country, ... we are more hesitant to allow interference [than at the border], even if the vehicle is close to the border. For this reason, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that one of the vital elements in the Brignoni-Ponce reasonable suspicion test is whether the agents had reason to believe that the vehicle in question recently crossed the border. When the stop occurs a substantial distance from the border, we have found this element missing.

991 F.2d at 638-39 (quoting United States v. Melendez-Gonzalez, 727 F.2d 407, 411 (5th Cir.1984)). The Tenth Circuit referenced Fifth Circuit precedent in explaining the relationship between the distance from the border and a Border Patrol agent’s knowledge that a vehicle has crossed the border:

The road upon which Melendez-Gonzalez was stopped passed through two towns, causing the Fifth Circuit to observe, “If a vehicle is already past towns in this country, the mere fact that it is proceeding on a public highway leading from the border is not sufficient cause to believe the vehicle came from the border.” Additionally, we must be cognizant, as the Court was in Brignoni-Ponce, that “[r]oads near the border carry not only aliens seeking to enter the country illegally, but a large volume of legitimate traffic as well.” The further one gets from the border, the greater the likelihood the volume of legitimate travelers will increase. Thus, the more attenuated the international border becomes, the greater the significance distance assumes in the equation used to measure the power to stop only on reasonable suspicion when the officer has no knowledge whatever about the point of origin of a particular traveler’s route. Naturally, if the officer has an articulable basis for believing that point was across an international border, distance will have far less significance in judg