Case: 18-40365 Document: 00514997259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-40365 June 14, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE JUAN VALLEJO, JR., Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17-CR-566-1 Before JONES, HO, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Juan Vallejo appeals from the dismissal of his motion to suppress evidence. At an immigration checkpoint, Ernesto Cantu, a Border Patrol Agent, found marihuana in Vallejo’s car. Vallejo moved to suppress evidence of the marihuana and his subsequent statements, alleging Cantu found the drugs after an illegal search. After a hearing on the motion, the district court * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-40365 Document: 00514997259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 No. 18-40365 denied the motion and Vallejo appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision. Cantu stopped Vallejo at a routine immigration checkpoint near Sarita, Texas on August 17, 2017. Cantu asked Vallejo for identification, which Vallejo provided. At the suppression hearing, Cantu testified that Vallejo was sweating, fidgety, avoided eye contact, and otherwise seemed nervous. While Vallejo’s identification papers were standard, Vallejo’s behavior made Cantu curious. Vallejo claimed to be traveling to Corpus Christi, in a car he claimed belonged to a friend. Cantu asked if Vallejo would consent to allowing him to view the interior of the trunk. Vallejo consented. The trunk was empty, which Cantu found odd in light of Vallejo’s story of traveling to Corpus Christi. He asked Vallejo if he would consent to inspection in a secondary inspection lane, and again, Vallejo consented. Cantu testified, and Vallejo does not dispute, that the entire stop in the primary inspection lane lasted between forty-five seconds to one minute. Once in the secondary inspection lane, a canine unit alerted to the front bumper of the car and the officers found marihuana inside. Vallejo objected to the search, arguing that the agents unconstitutionally prolonged his detention beyond the permissible purpose of the immigration inspection, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Rodriguez, 702 F.3d 206, 208 (5th Cir. 2012). Suspicionless “stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment” in the immigration context. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 566 (1976). We have long held that the validity of an immigration stop turns on “the length of the detention, not the questions asked.” United States v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425, 432 (5th Cir. 2001). An immigration stop may continue for as long as is needed to ascertain the identity of a person, to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals