United States v. Sammy Wayne Kenney

601 F.2d 211, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12274
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 23, 1979
Docket78-5699
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 601 F.2d 211 (United States v. Sammy Wayne Kenney) 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. Sammy Wayne Kenney, 601 F.2d 211, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12274 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Wayne Kenney was indicted in one count for importation of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), and in a second count for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Paul R. Neely testified that he had been an officer of *212 the U. S. Customs Service a little more than three years. He had been stationed at Big Bend National Park for a year and a half. On August 6,1978, at 7:00 p. m., he was on duty in the Park observing the Rio Grande River crossing at Boquillas, Mexico, his surveillance point being located about 200 yards from the River, This crossing is an unstaffed Class B Port of Entry. Tourists are transported across the River from 7:00 a. m. until 6:00 p. m. by a row boat regularly operated by two Mexicans who were known to Officer Neely,

Through binoculars, he observed an Oldsmobile and a Valiant automobiles park in the lot located on a Park overlook above the crossing, about one-half mile away. A sign on the road to the crossing read as follows:

Persons arriving from Mexico with vehicle and/or baggage, mdse,, must report to United States Customs. Failure to do so will subject you to penalties.
Nearest offices Presidio, Tex, open 24 hrs., Marathon, Tex. open 8:30 a.m. — 5 p. m. Mon. thru Fri.

Neely saw a woman, two children, and a man wearing a red shirt and a light-colored cowboy hat get out of the Valiant. A man wearing only cut-off shorts exited the Oldsmobile. No one was carrying anything. The men went to the edge of the overlook and yelled. A man on the Mexican side of the River called back. The two men left the overlook on a footpath and disappeared from Neely’s sight. When Neely saw them again, the shirtless man yelled across the River and waved his hands. Then the men proceeded down a footpath paralleling the River. Vegetation blocked Neely’s view of the men.

Neely observed a green pickup and a white pickup on the Mexican side of the River. Three Mexicans, none of whom was a regular boat operator, operated the row boat across the River. At the landing, two Mexicans got out, leaving one man in the rear of the boat. Although the persons standing at the River were not fully visible, Neely could see that one of them was wearing a red shirt. The Mexican in the boat picked up a large, light-colored bag and handed it to someone on the beach. Soon thereafter, Neely saw that one of the men was back at the overlook and was placing the bag into the trunk of the Valiant,

Neely and his partner quickly proceeded to the intersection of the only Park roads leading from the overlook. The Oldsmobile and the Valiant appeared and ran the stop sign at the intersection. Two Customs officers who had come to assist Neely and his partner followed the Oldsmobile. With flashing red lights, Neely followed the Valiant. The Valiant stopped at a location approximately one mile from the River. Neely told the driver, defendant Kenney, who was wearing a red shirt, to get out of the vehicle! Kenney complied. After advising Kenney that he was a U. S. Customs officer, Neely took the keys from the ignition and opened up the trunk of the Valiant. Inside he found two light-colored mesh bags containing marijuana. The bags and their contents weighed 61 pounds. Neely has participated in 20 to 25 seizures of marijuana in this area. The majority of them involved light-colored mesh bags such as these.

The district court denied Kenney’s motion to suppress. The jury found Kenney guilty on both counts. Consecutive sentences of two years’ imprisonment and five years’ special parole terms were imposed.

Officer Neely was authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 482 1 to make this stop of Kenney’s vehicle and search its trunk if he had rea *213 sonable cause to suspect that it contained merchandise imported contrary to law. 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) makes unlawful the importation into the customs territory of the United States from any place outside thereof any controlled substance, e. g., marijuana, with certain exceptions not pertinent here. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) makes unlawful the knowing or intentional possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.

The authority granted by § 482 is, of course, subject to the requirements of the fourth amendment. United States v. Bowman, 502 F.2d 1215, 1218 (5th Cir. 1974). However, Neely’s actions were fourth amendment proper because he was possessed of objective facts which formed a basis for reasonable suspicion that customs laws were being violated and that the object of his search had crossed the border. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 147, 153-6 (5th Cir. 1979). Cf. United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1977), relating to customs ship searches under 19 U.S.C. § 1581.

Neely had observed persons from the Oldsmobile and Valiant make contact at the international border with persons coming into the United States from Mexico. He had seen a large, light-colored bag of the sort commonly used to contain marijuana being exchanged between the persons who had crossed from Mexico, and he subsequently had seen the bag being placed into the trunk of the Valiant. The facts known to Neely at the time formed a solid basis for reasonable suspicion that a violation of the customs laws of the United States was taking place. Kenney mistakenly relies on United States v. Resendez, 578 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1978). Officer Neely’s suspicion was not based upon mere presence of Ken-ney’s vehicle near the border, as was the case in Resendez, but upon direct observation of a border crossing and an importation of material bearing a hallmark of contraband.

Kenney argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish knowing, intentional importation contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 952. He relies upon the sign posted at the point of entry advising that a declaration of merchandise could be made at the Customs Offices in Presidio or Marathon, Texas.

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

Related

United States v. Cardenas
Fifth Circuit, 1994
United States v. Wayne Joseph Young
966 F.2d 164 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
U.S. v. Young
Fifth Circuit, 1992
United States v. John Terrance Garcia, Phillip G. Jackman
672 F.2d 1349 (Eleventh Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Raymond Richards
638 F.2d 765 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
601 F.2d 211, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sammy-wayne-kenney-ca5-1979.