Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Gilbert Salas Rodriguez

United States v. Gilbert Salas Rodriguez, 556 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1977)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1977-07-21
Topic: general

*278 PER CURIAM: Rodriguez appeals from his conviction of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On February 3, 1976, appellant with his wife and child drove a car through the permanent immigration checkpoint at Falfurrias, Texas. A Border Patrol agent at the checkpoint discovered marijuana in the car’s trunk. Rodriguez asserts on appeal the illegality of the agent’s search and the insufficiency of the evidence that the prosecution presented to the jury regarding possession. We affirm.

Citator

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

Cited by: 6 opinions

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ,556 F.2d 277(5th Cir. 1977)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GILBERT SALAS RODRIGUEZ,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 77-5026.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 21, 1977.

Robert Nino, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U.S. Atty., Corpus Christi, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.Page 278

PER CURIAM:

[1] Rodriguez appeals from his conviction of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On February 3, 1976, appellant with his wife and child drove a car through the permanent immigration checkpoint at Falfurrias, Texas. A Border Patrol agent at the checkpoint discovered marijuana in the car's trunk. Rodriguez asserts on appeal the illegality of the agent's search and the insufficiency of the evidence that the prosecution presented to the jury regarding possession. We affirm.

[2] The agent could legally stop the automobile for brief citizenship questioning at the Falfurrias permanent checkpoint, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion.See United Statesv. Martinez-Fuerte,428 U.S. 543,96 S.Ct. 3074,49 L.Ed.2d 1116(1976);United States v. McCrary,543 F.2d 554(5th Cir. 1976);United States v. Diaz,541 F.2d 1165(5th Cir. 1976);UnitedStates v. Torres,537 F.2d 1299(5th Cir. 1976). While he had stopped appellant at the checkpoint, the agent detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. Thereupon the Border Patrol agent had probable cause to search the automobile and legally proceeded to do so.See, e.g., United States v. Diaz,supra,541 F.2d at 1166;United States v. McCrary, supra.

[3] Second, the evidence was compelling that Rodriguez had exclusive dominion and control of the marijuana discovered in the trunk of the car. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find appellant in constructive possession of the contraband.SeeUnited States v. Maspero,496 F.2d 1354(5th Cir. 1974).

[4] AFFIRMED.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; seeIsbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩