United States v. Rogelio Ruben Lujan-Romero

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Rogelio Ruben Lujan-Romero

469 F.2d 683, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6749

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1972

Docket72-1829

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 469 F.2d 683 (United States v. Rogelio Ruben Lujan-Romero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Rogelio Ruben Lujan-Romero, 469 F.2d 683, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6749 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lujan-Romero was convicted of having possessed a quantity of marijuana with the intention of distributing it, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 963.

At a border check point, located approximately fifty-six miles north of the Mexican-American border, the appellant’s automobile was stopped by agents authorized to search vehicles for concealed aliens. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and was seen to contain two foot lockers. The Government concedes that neither of the lockers was of sufficient size to conceal a human being. The Government’s agents opened the lockers and discovered the marijuana in question. Lujan-Romero’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied, apparently upon the basis of the Government’s argument that the two lockers, if opened at their ends and joined, would have then, together, contained sufficient space to conceal an alien. We cannot accept this argument. The record discloses that the investigating agents might have quite easily, without opening the lockers pushed them apart and ascertained whether or not they were in fact joined together. Our court has held that government agents of the authority such as those here involved are authorized to search only those portions of an automobile or its contents which are reasonably susceptible of concealing aliens. See, e.g., Valenzuela-Garcia v. United States, 425 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1970). The motion to suppress should have been granted. The judgment of conviction is vacated, and upon remand, the indictment will be dismissed.

Reversed, with directions.

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

PER CURIAM:

Lujan-Romero was convicted of having possessed a quantity of marijuana with the intention of distributing it, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 963.

At a border check point, located approximately fifty-six miles north of the Mexican-American border, the appellant’s automobile was stopped by agents authorized to search vehicles for concealed aliens. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and was seen to contain two foot lockers. The Government concedes that neither of the lockers was of sufficient size to conceal a human being. The Government’s agents opened the lockers and discovered the marijuana in question. Lujan-Romero’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied, apparently upon the basis of the Government’s argument that the two lockers, if opened at their ends and joined, would have then, together, contained sufficient space to conceal an alien. We cannot accept this argument. The record discloses that the investigating agents might have quite easily, without opening the lockers pushed them apart and ascertained whether or not they were in fact joined together. Our court has held that government agents of the authority such as those here involved are authorized to search only those portions of an automobile or its contents which are reasonably susceptible of concealing aliens. See, e.g., Valenzuela-Garcia v. United States, 425 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1970). The motion to suppress should have been granted. The judgment of conviction is vacated, and upon remand, the indictment will be dismissed.

Reversed, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F.2d 683, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rogelio-ruben-lujan-romero-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack