212 F.3d 1162, 1163 (9th Cir.2000) (reversing a “found in” conviction of an alien who was detected on a surveillance video camera as he crossed the border and except for a split second never left the agent’s sight before his arrest). On the other hand, where an individual evades the government’s detection, even for a brief time, we have held that he has legally entered the country free of official restraint and may be convicted of a “found in” offense. See United States v. Ramos-Godinez, 273 F.3d 820, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming a “found in” conviction where law enforcement observed the defendant cross the border but lost sight of him for two significant periods of time before his apprehension); United States v. Hernandez-Herrera, 273 F.3d 1213, 1219 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Bello-Bahena asserts that a rational jury
holding that an alien  who was being pursued by law enforcement and escaped into thick brush out of sight of law enforcement for a period before his arrest was free from official restraint holding that law enforcement commission was a benefit of employment holding that while law enforcement officers properly separated and assumed possession of a cell phone from arrestees person during the search incident to arrest a warrant was required before the information data and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement holding peace officer who responded to a request from another law enforcement agency for assistance had authority to complete the investigation and make an arrest