United States v. Atanacio Esparza Garza

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Atanacio Esparza Garza

539 F.2d 381, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7226

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 1976

Docket76-2413

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 539 F.2d 381 (United States v. Atanacio Esparza Garza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Atanacio Esparza Garza, 539 F.2d 381, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7226 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Garza appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of ninety-four pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

The facts are stipulated by the parties. On April 25, 1975, Garza stopped at a permanent immigration checkpoint, manned by the Border Patrol, located seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas, about 77 highway miles from the Mexican border. While questioning Garza, the officer noticed an odor of marijuana and requested him to open the trunk. Three suitcases were found which contained marijuana. Garza, in a motion to suppress, challenged the constitutionality of the search, contending that there was no probable cause to search. He also challenged the authority of the Border Patrol to stop vehicles at the checkpoint. The district court denied the motion.

In Sifuentes v. United States, 1976,-U.S. -, -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3086, 49 L.Ed.2d-, the Court held that “. stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment * * * ”, and that a search thereafter was proper if based upon consent or probable cause. The Falfurrias checkpoint is a permanent checkpoint within the parameters of Sifuentes, supra. Thus, the stop was constitutionally valid and the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to conduct the search. United States v. Coffey, 5 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 1103.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Garza appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of ninety-four pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

The facts are stipulated by the parties. On April 25, 1975, Garza stopped at a permanent immigration checkpoint, manned by the Border Patrol, located seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas, about 77 highway miles from the Mexican border. While questioning Garza, the officer noticed an odor of marijuana and requested him to open the trunk. Three suitcases were found which contained marijuana. Garza, in a motion to suppress, challenged the constitutionality of the search, contending that there was no probable cause to search. He also challenged the authority of the Border Patrol to stop vehicles at the checkpoint. The district court denied the motion.

In Sifuentes v. United States, 1976,-U.S. -, -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3086, 49 L.Ed.2d-, the Court held that “. stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment * * * ”, and that a search thereafter was proper if based upon consent or probable cause. The Falfurrias checkpoint is a permanent checkpoint within the parameters of Sifuentes, supra. Thus, the stop was constitutionally valid and the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to conduct the search. United States v. Coffey, 5 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 1103.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 F.2d 381, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-atanacio-esparza-garza-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack