Case ID: f-appx_564/html/0088-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jennifer Ellen Marie RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40668
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stephen W. Byrne, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jennifer Ellen Marie Rodriguez appeals her conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. She contends that the district court erroneously denied her motion to suppress evidence seized from her car during a traffic stop.

The following facts show that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress: Trooper Garcia testified during the suppression hearing that Rodriguez was driving her car northbound on Highway 281, a known drug smuggling corridor. Garcia observed that, before he gave Rodriguez a warning ticket, she acted nervous, exhibiting shaking hands, goose bumps (on a hot day), and a quick mood change (from listening to loud music to crying). Additionally, Rodriguez advised Garcia that she was traveling from McAl-len to San Antonio to attend a funeral on a Sunday morning. Garcia found this unusual because he had never heard of a funeral being held at that time. Also, because he did not initially see any luggage or hanging clothes in the car or trunk, he believed that Rodriguez had not packed any clothing or toiletries for her trip. Finally, Rodriguez, who advised Garcia that she was a college student, had paid cash for her newly purchased car. Although Garcia learned that Rodriguez traded in her old car to buy the new one, he initially found it odd that a college student could pay cash for a car and was suspicious because he knew that drug traffickers used newly purchased cars to transport drugs. See, e.g., United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 352, 358 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506-12 (5th Cir.2004) (en banc).

Rodriguez additionally contends that there were no intervening circumstances to break the causal chain between her illegal detention and her consent. Because Rodriguez’s consent was not preceded by an illegal detention, her argument cannot succeed. See United States v. Khanalizadeh, 493 F.3d 479, 484 (5th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.