Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jose Rodriguez Santibanez

517 F.2d 922

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1975-08-11
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Santibanez was stopped for an immigration check at the La Gloria checkpoint. While interrogating Santibanez concerning his citizenship the immigration officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle. His assistant thereupon opened the rear door of the station wagon and found 240 pounds of marijuana. Santibanez moved to suppress this evidence. The motion was denied.

Citator

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

Cited by
25 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SANTIBANEZ,517 F.2d 922(5th Cir. 1975)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSE RODRIGUEZ SANTIBANEZ,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 74-3382.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
August 11, 1975.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 23, 1975.
Page 923
L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Anthony J. P. Farris, U.S. Atty., James R. Gough, 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 GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Santibanez was stopped for an immigration check at the La Gloria checkpoint. While interrogating Santibanez concerning his citizenship the immigration officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle. His assistant thereupon opened the rear door of the station wagon and found 240 pounds of marijuana. Santibanez moved to suppress this evidence. The motion was denied. Santibanez was found guilty of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. He appeals, contending that the search and seizure were illegal. We affirm.

[2] We find no constitutional dereliction in stopping vehicles at this permanent checkpoint for the purpose of determining the occupant's citizenship. Such a stop is considerably less intrusive than a search, Terry v. Ohio, 1968,392 U.S. 1,88 S.Ct. 1968,20 L.Ed.2d 889.Cf.United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. ___,95 S.Ct. 2585,45 L.Ed.2d 623, 43 L.W. 5026 (June 30, 1975).1

[3] The odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle's interior gave the immigration officer probable cause to then conduct the search. The motion to suppress the evidence was thus properly denied.

[4] Affirmed.Page 925
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. The question here presented was expressly reserved by the Supreme Court inOrtiz. ↩