Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Estrada

United States v. Estrada, 526 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1976)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1976-01-23
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • finding reasonable suspicion where, in addition to road’s notoriety and time of night, suspect vehicle pulled over when Border Patrol agents stopped another vehicle and then fled when agents approached
  • suspicious behavior of the occupants

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Estrada. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ESTRADA,526 F.2d 357(5th Cir. 1976)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ERNESTO ARAON ESTRADA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 75-3142.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 23, 1976.
Page 358
Charles L. Barrera, Terry A. Canales, Alice, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Ernesto Araon Estrada was found guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We reject his argument that the conviction was based on an illegal search and seizure and affirm.

[2] Appellant makes no contention that the search and seizure in and of themselves were improper, except insofar as they resulted from an illegal stop of appellant's vehicle by Border Patrol agents. To justify the stop, the government argued below that the "Chekar" device, by which the agents first detected appellant's vehicle proceeding north on Farm to Market Road (FM) 1017 toward Hebbronville, Texas, constituted a "permanent checkpoint" where stops are permissible even without reasonable suspicion underAlmeida-Sanchez v. United States,413 U.S. 266,93 S.Ct. 2535,37 L.Ed.2d 596(1973). This court has now rejected that argument on the basis of the more recent Supreme Court decision inUnitedStates v. Ortiz,422 U.S. 891,95 S.Ct. 2585,45 L.Ed.2d 623(1975).United States v. Del Bosque,523 F.2d 1251(5 Cir. 1975).

[3] Nevertheless, we believe that there were ample grounds for reasonable suspicion at the time of the stop. First, appellant was travelling at night on a road over which the transportation of illegal aliens often took place. Second, after Border Patrol agents stopped another vehicle just north of the intersection of FM 1017 A.2d and FM 285, appellant's vehicle turned off FM 1017 to the east on FM 285 and came to a stop at a trash barrel some three blocks from the intersection. Finally, appellant's vehicle suddenly resumed motion when approached by Border Patrol agents at the trash barrel. We find that, considered together, these constituted "specific articulable facts . . . that reasonably warrant[ed] suspicion" on the part of the agents and that the stop was therefore justified.United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,422 U.S. 873,884,95 S.Ct. 2574,2582,45 L.Ed.2d 607(1975).

[4] Our decision is not affected by the fact that the Border Patrol agents made it their practice to search every vehicle travelling north on FM 1017, time and manpower permitting, regardless of any grounds for reasonable suspicion or lack thereof. The legality of the officers' action depends upon the objective facts known to them at the time appellant's freedom was restricted by the stop, and not upon the officers' subjective reasons for their actions.See United States v. Saunders,476 F.2d 5,7(5 Cir. 1973);Dodd v. Beto,435 F.2d 868Page 359(5 Cir. 1970),cert. denied,404 U.S. 845,92 S.Ct. 145,30 L.Ed.2d 81(1971).

[5] Therefore the judgment is affirmed.Page 367
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; seeIsbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩