Picked up 40 bricks in Chula Vista

Pulled over by border patrol on I-15

Carlos Enriquez "has done this four or five times before.”
  • Carlos Enriquez "has done this four or five times before.”

Carlos Enriquez told a detective that he was contacted by a person in Tijuana who told him, “He had a job for Enriquez.” Enriquez said he crossed the border into the United States, picked up a large duffle bag from someone in Chula Vista, and was given an address in Los Angeles to make a delivery, according to testimony in court today, September 10.

Local border patrol officers pulled over a red Chevy Silverado truck with California license plates on Interstate 15, at 10:30 am on July 12. Agents testified that Ramirez was the driver and sole person in the truck. In the rear seat of the truck was a large black duffle bag that contained 40 plastic FoodSaver packages, each of these contained about a pound of meth, according to officers.

Agent Elias Perez, who has been with the U.S. Border Patrol 22 years, testified that the 40 packages were “like bricks,” and the total gross weight was 20.8 kilograms or 45.8 pounds of methamphetamine.

The cash value in California of meth is $2,000 per pound, according to San Diego County Sheriff’s detective Dang. The drug specialist said the final total value of 45 pounds of meth, knowing the price of meth when sold in grams on the street, was “almost a million dollars.”

Enriquez allegedly told the detective “he has done this four or five times before.”

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader

Comments

Does the admission that he's done this before make it OK? Or maybe lessens the severity of the charges and sentence he'll get (assuming he gets sent to the joint) as a result? He didn't even get busted at the border--it was a pickup on the US side, acting as a courier. Wow! How stupid can they get and how much money is involved.

Visduh, Detective Dang was the one who said he heard the incriminating statements from suspect Carlos Enriquez. The detective said he was trained by the DEA and has been a certified drug recognition expert for 12 years. The detective spoke with Enriquez after the suspect was pulled over by Border Patrol agents on the freeway in North County.

This "detective" does not look like police, he has the look of one who works undercover, so this journalist wonders if the defendant knew he was speaking to an officer when he allegedly revealed so much damning information.

The defendant had benefit of a Spanish-speaking interpreter during the brief preliminary hearing this week. Enriquez is in custody in lieu of $200,000 bail. Carlos Alberto Enriquez, 39, pleads not-guilty to possession of meth and transporting drugs for sale. Enriquez could face up to 14 years in prison if convicted of all charges, his attorney said.

Honorable judge Harry M. Elias ordered Enrique back to court on October 5 to confirm a trial date in San Diego’s North County Superior courthouse in Vista, California.

From your explanation it sounds like law enforcement used a technique where they put the suspect, Enriquez, in a holding room or other space where the detective was already present or introduced later. Due to the detective’s appearance and or demeanor our drug runner may have believed the detective, himself, was a suspect in another crime. The detective is even allowed to lie about his situation. It might go like this: the detective, in handcuffs enters the room and “struggles” against a uniformed officers placing him there. He, the detective may even claim innocence or how the cops were just out to get home. Then casually he might say something like ”what are you here for” directed at Enriquez. Now, as long as the detective does not conduct what the court, or a reasonable person, would consider an interrogation, anything Enriquez voluntarily shares, tells, or boasts about while these two “suspects” are in the same space is admissible in a court of law.

No one should have any expectation of privacy while in any state of custody, with the one exception, while they are with an Attorney. It’s settled law and the courts have repeatedly ruled that law enforcement may use techniques like the one described above to combat crime to discover knowledge of the crime(s) or state of mind of the suspect.

JW, that's an excellent reminder to anyone who has contact with the cops. If you don't want self-incriminatory statements used against you, regardless of your innocence, make none to anybody, even the most sympathetic bystanders.

Log in to comment

Skip Ad