United States v. Gilbert Salas Rodriguez

556 F.2d 277, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12358
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 21, 1977
Docket77-5026
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 556 F.2d 277 (United States v. Gilbert Salas Rodriguez) 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. Gilbert Salas Rodriguez, 556 F.2d 277, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12358 (5th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

*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.

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 States v. 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); United States 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.

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. See United States v. Maspero, 496 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir. 1974).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Marco Tulio Del Aguila-Reyes
722 F.2d 155 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
United States v. John Terrance Garcia, Phillip G. Jackman
672 F.2d 1349 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Elvia Escamilla Moreno
579 F.2d 371 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Ralph Bert Holbrook
571 F.2d 335 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Frank Steve Legeza, Jr.
559 F.2d 441 (Fifth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
556 F.2d 277, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gilbert-salas-rodriguez-ca5-1977.