United States v. Cadena-Santos

699 F. Supp. 607, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13141, 1988 WL 124683
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedOctober 6, 1988
DocketCrim. No. L-88-435
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 699 F. Supp. 607 (United States v. Cadena-Santos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Cadena-Santos, 699 F. Supp. 607, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13141, 1988 WL 124683 (S.D. Tex. 1988).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KAZEN, District Judge.

Pending is Defendant’s motion to suppress. The issue is whether the Government agents had probable cause to justify stopping Defendant’s vehicle, ordering Defendant out of the vehicle, reaching into the vehicle to pull the hood latch, and open[608]*608ing the hood of the vehicle. The Court finds that they did.

The agents had received two tips from an individual who eventually identified himself as an informant and who had given reliable information on several previous occasions. The information was corroborated by surveillance. The Defendant arrived at the 3600 block of San Eduardo Avenue as predicted, in the automobile described by the informant. Shortly thereafter he was seen placing a grey package under the hood of his vehicle. The package generally fit the description given by the informant, who indicated that the package would contain black tar heroin. The Defendant then proceeded to drive in a somewhat erratic manner to the intersection where he was finally stopped. The Defendant was known to the agents to be a convicted heroin dealer, recently released from prison. In fact the two agents who testified at the suppression hearing had been involved in the Defendant’s prior ease. The factual circumstances were also sufficiently exigent to justify a warrantless search under the “automobile exception.” See generally Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); United States v. Reyes, 792 F.2d 536 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Barbin, 743 F.2d 256 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Cisneros-Mireles, 739 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir.1984).

The motion to suppress is DENIED.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Pleummer
617 A.2d 718 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 F. Supp. 607, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13141, 1988 WL 124683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cadena-santos-txsd-1988.