United States v. Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks

520 F.2d 1103, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12444

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1975

Docket74-2772

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 520 F.2d 1103 (United States v. Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks) 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. Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks, 520 F.2d 1103, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12444 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 1975 vacated the judgment of this court in the case of Coffey v. United States, 509 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1975) 1 for further consideration *1104 in light of United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).

We have carefully considered the decision in that case and have concluded that it does not require reversal of our judgment. In Brignoni-Ponce the Court held that a roving patrol stop must be supported by a reasonable suspicion that the detained vehicle contains aliens illegally in the country. The stop in that case occurred at a permanent checkpoint. However, because the checkpoint was closed due to inclement weather, and because the stop was effectuated after pursuit by officers whose car had been parked along the roadside at the checkpoint, the Court treated the stop as one by roving patrol agents rather than at a permanent traffic checkpoint.

In the case now before us the appellants’ car was stopped by officers at the Sierra Blanca permanent checkpoint for a routine immigration check. When the window of the vehicle was opened, the officer detected a strong odor of marijuana. The checkpoint was not closed; the stop in no way resembled a roving patrol stop.

We find no constitutional dereliction in stopping vehicles at this permanent checkpoint for the purpose of determining the occupants’ citizenship. United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975). Such a stop is considerably less obtrusive than a search. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Cf. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623, 43 U.S.L.W. 5026 (June 30, 1975). 2 The odor of marijuana from the interior of appellants’ vehicle gave the immigration officer probable cause to then conduct the search. The motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied.

Affirmed.

1

. This case involves Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks.

2

. In Ortiz the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question of the legality of permanent checkpoint stops to question motorists when there is no reason to believe that a particular vehicle is carrying aliens.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 1975 vacated the judgment of this court in the case of Coffey v. United States, 509 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1975) 1 for further consideration *1104 in light of United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).

We have carefully considered the decision in that case and have concluded that it does not require reversal of our judgment. In Brignoni-Ponce the Court held that a roving patrol stop must be supported by a reasonable suspicion that the detained vehicle contains aliens illegally in the country. The stop in that case occurred at a permanent checkpoint. However, because the checkpoint was closed due to inclement weather, and because the stop was effectuated after pursuit by officers whose car had been parked along the roadside at the checkpoint, the Court treated the stop as one by roving patrol agents rather than at a permanent traffic checkpoint.

In the case now before us the appellants’ car was stopped by officers at the Sierra Blanca permanent checkpoint for a routine immigration check. When the window of the vehicle was opened, the officer detected a strong odor of marijuana. The checkpoint was not closed; the stop in no way resembled a roving patrol stop.

We find no constitutional dereliction in stopping vehicles at this permanent checkpoint for the purpose of determining the occupants’ citizenship. United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975). Such a stop is considerably less obtrusive than a search. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Cf. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623, 43 U.S.L.W. 5026 (June 30, 1975). 2 The odor of marijuana from the interior of appellants’ vehicle gave the immigration officer probable cause to then conduct the search. The motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied.

Affirmed.

1

. This case involves Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks.

2

. In Ortiz the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question of the legality of permanent checkpoint stops to question motorists when there is no reason to believe that a particular vehicle is carrying aliens.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 F.2d 1103, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-patrick-lowry-coffey-and-richard-joseph-sparks-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack