Case: 19-50832 Document: 00515571219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 18, 2020 No. 19-50832 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Andres Soriano, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-592-1 Before King, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge: Andres Soriano appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress on grounds that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his vehicle conducted during a traffic stop. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. Facts & Procedural History In August 2018, Soriano was arrested during a traffic stop after a search of his vehicle revealed a suitcase that contained nine bundles of a substance later determined to be cocaine having a total weight of 10,715 Case: 19-50832 Document: 00515571219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2020 No. 19-50832 grams. He was charged with possession with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. Soriano moved to suppress the discovery of the cocaine. He contended that the police officers who conducted the traffic stop, Carla Rodriguez-Montelongo and Javier Ramirez, “unjustifiably prolonged his detention beyond the amount of time needed to complete the purpose of the traffic stop” in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He also argued that his consent to search his vehicle was involuntary under this court’s six- part test for determining whether consent was given freely and voluntarily. (citing United States v. Perales, 886 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2018)). The magistrate judge (MJ) conducted a hearing on Soriano’s motion. Officer Rodriguez testified at the hearing that on the day in question, she was traveling eastbound on Interstate 10 with her partner, Officer Ramirez, performing routine traffic patrol. Soriano was travelling in his vehicle eastbound and passed Officer Rodriguez’s patrol car. The speed limit was 80 miles per hour and Officer Rodriguez clocked Soriano driving at 90 miles per hour. She also observed that the vehicle’s window tint appeared to exceed the legal limit. She activated her emergency lights to make a traffic stop, which automatically activated the patrol car’s dash-cam video and the officers’ body cameras. Officer Rodriguez 1 approached Soriano’s vehicle on the passenger side and speaking in Spanish, informed Soriano of the reason for the traffic stop: “speed and the window tint.” She ran a “tint meter” on Soriano’s windows, which confirmed that his window tint exceeded the legal limit. 1 It appears from the record that Officer Ramirez stood close to Officer Rodriguez and Soriano during most of the traffic stop, but did not directly question or speak with Soriano until after the search of the vehicle ended and Soriano was placed under arrest. 2 Case: 19-50832 Document: 00515571219 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/18/2020 No. 19-50832 Soriano then volunteered that his driver’s license had been suspended for approximately two years due to his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals