The court of appeals affirmed a judgment of the district court. The court held that in a hearing on a motion to suppress, the district judge’s violation of the rule of evidence prohibiting trial testimony from the presiding judge, by interjecting his own observations regarding the location of stop signs and the narrowness of the roads, was harmless error.
Border patrol officers noted the activation of a seismic intrusion device, which in their experience indicated an illegal crossing of the border. They positioned themselves at a point where they would expect the crossers in a vehicle to be two hours later. The area was known for smuggling activity.