Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40625/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40625-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Keith Avery
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40625

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AARON KEITH AVERY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-1094-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aaron Keith Avery was convicted of two counts of transporting an 

undocumented alien. He argues that the district court erroneously denied his 

motion to suppress evidence because the stop of his vehicle at the Falfurrias 

Border Patrol checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment. He contends that 

the Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the primary purpose of the 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40625 Document: 00515411450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
No. 19-40625

2

checkpoint was general crime control rather than the enforcement of 

immigration laws. 

On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district 

court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. United 

States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005). Evidence is viewed 

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and “the clearly erroneous 

standard is particularly strong” where, as here, the district court’s ruling is 

based on live oral testimony. United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“At a fixed checkpoint having the primary purpose of identifying illegal 

immigrants, vehicles may be briefly detained in furtherance of that purpose 

and their occupants questioned, all without either a warrant or any 

individualized reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Jaime, 473 F.3d 178, 

181 (5th Cir. 2006). The scope of immigration checkpoint stops “is limited to 

the justifying, programmatic purpose of the stop: determining the citizenship 

status of persons passing through the checkpoint.” United States v. MachucaBarrera, 261 F.3d 425, 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The district court did not err in rejecting Avery’s argument that the 

agent’s questioning went beyond the reasonable scope and duration of an 

immigration-related stop. In the brief stop, lasting about 35 seconds, the agent 

asked Avery roughly four questions pertaining to his travels before requesting, 

and receiving, Avery’s consent to search his trunk. See Jaime, 473 F.3d at 181; 

cf. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47-48 (2000). These were 

permissible queries. See United States v. Tello, 924 F.3d 782, 787 (5th Cir.); 

cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 172 (2019). Avery thus fails to show that the district 

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered after the 

stop. See Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 429. Because Avery has not shown that 

Case: 19-40625 Document: 00515411450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
No. 19-40625

3

the initial stop was unconstitutional, we do not address his argument that the 

unconstitutional stop tainted his consent to the search of his trunk. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-40625 Document: 00515411450 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2020