P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40126 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. J OS E L UI S Z AMBRANO D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SDC N o . 5 : 0 7

- CR- 4 8

- ALL
B ef ore K IN G , G A R W O O D an d B A R K S D A L E , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jose L u i s Zam bran o app eal s hi s c on vi ct i on f ol l ow i n g a ben ch tr i alf or p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te in e x c e s s o f 1 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n ain vi ol ati on of

21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 841 ( a) ( 1) a n d (b) ( 1) ( B )
. H e a rgues t h at the di st ri ctcourt err ed in d en yin g h i s m oti on to su p p ress the m a rij u a n aseizedi n conj u n cti on w i th th e traffic stop tha t l edto h i s ar r e s t. I n con sider i n g a ru l i n g o n a m oti on to su p p ress , this cou rt review s f i n d i n gs of fact f

or cleare r r o ra n d th e u l ti m a te United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D May 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40126

Zam br ano not es t hatD eput y C al der on adm i t t ed t hat he w oul d nothave 1 al l ow ed Z am bran o to l eave t h e scen e ev en if Z am bran o ha d att em pted t o do so. H ow eve r , only D epu ty C a l d ero n ’ s obj ective con d u ct, an dn ot h i s p riva te tho u gh ts an d s u bj ect ive i n t en t i on s, are rel evan t i n determ i n i n g w h et h er a se izu re t ook 2 F o u rt h A m en dm en tconcl u si on s de no vo . Uni t e d St at e sv . Br igha m , 3 82 F. 3d 500 , 506 n. 2 (5 th C ir. 2 004 ) ( en ban c)
. W e vi ew t h e evi den ce i n t h e l i gh tm ost fa v o r a b le to th e p r e v a ilin gp a r ty , inth is ca s e th e G o v e r n m e n t. Se ei d. Z a m b r a n o d o e s n o t c o n te s t th a t h e w a s s p e e d in g a n d th a t th e in itia l tr a ffic st op w as j u st i f

i ed. R ather, Za m bran o argu es th at D ep u t y C al deron
u n constit u t i on al l y extend ed the du rat i on of t h e st op w h en t h e dep u t y conti n u ed t o q ues t i on hi m and s ear c hed t h e ve hi c l e a f t ert he purpo seof

t he s t op w as c o m pl e t e d. Thi s c o ur tha s no t e d that“ a c o ns e ns ual i nt e r r o ga t i o n m ay f o l l o w t he e nd of a va l i dtraff

ic s to p a n dtha t su ch con sen su a len cou n ters d o n ot i m p l i ca te F ou rth A m en d m en t con cern s. ” Id
. at508 (c i t i ng Uni t e d St at e sv . Sanc hez - Pe na , 33 6 F. 3d4 31 , 4 42 –4 3 ( 5th C i r . 2 00 3) (f i ndi ng a c o ns e ns uale nc o unt e rw he r e t he off i cer h a dretu rn edth e d r ive r’ s l i cen se a n di n su ra n ce a n dthe n req u ested to cond u cta searc h of

t h e veh i cl e) )
. “ S o l on g as ‘ a reasona bl e person w ou l d feelf ree to d e c lin e th e o ffic e r s ’re q u e s ts o ro th e r w is e te r m in a te th e e n c o u n te r ,’it is
con sen su a l
. ” Sanc hez - Pe na , 336 F. 3d at441 ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. D rayt on , 12 2 S. C t . 2 105 , 211 1 ( 20 02 ) )
. Af t e ri s s ui ng Zam br anoat r af f i cc i t at i o n a nd exp l ai n i n g w h at th e cit ati on requi red Za m bran o t o do, C al deron ret u rned Zam br ano ’ s l i c e ns e and i ns ur anc e ce r t i f i c at e and as ke d i f

he ha d a ny que s t i o ns (w hi c h he di d not)
. Cal der on di d not ac c use Zam br ano of ot herc r i m i nalac t ivit y, a n dh e d i dn o t s a y o r d o a n yth i n g to ind i ca te tha t Za m b ra n o w a s n ot f ree to l eave , nordi d he i n any w ay at t em ptt o phys i ca l l y d etai n hi m . Al t hough C al deron di d n otexpressly i n f orm Za m bran o th a t he w as f ree t o l eave, Zam br anol at e rt e s t i f i e d t hat he s ho ul d hav e fe l t f r e e t o g o a f

t e rhe r e c e ive d the cit ati on becau se he w as st opp ed f or s peed i n g. U n der t h ese c i rcum st an ces, 1N o. 08- 40126

p la c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mask , 3 3 0 F .3d3 3 0 , 3 3 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). 3 Zam br ano’ s dec i si on t o r em ai n on s i t e a nd answ erC al der on’ s ques t i on s w as c o n s e n s u a l. S eeid
. at442–43. Th er ef or e, the di st r i c tcour tdi d notc om m i tc l ear erro r i n de term i n i n g th a t th e en cou n ter be tw ee n Z a m b ra n o a n dD ep u ty C al deron f

ol l ow i n g t h e i ssuan ce of t h e t raf f i c cit ati on w as consen sua l
. B ased on th i s f i n d i n g, th e d i stri ct cou rt a l so correctly con cl u d ed th a t th ere w a s n o F ou rth A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . T h e G o v e r n m e n t ’s p o s it io n is fu r t h e rs u p p o r t e db yth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s f i n di ng thatZa m bran o consented to t h e searc h of hi s vehi cl e. Zam bran o t est i f i ed t hathe w as ne ve ra s ke d f o rno rv o l unt ar i l y ga vehi s c o ns e ntt o t he s e ar c h,
w he r e as Depu t y Cal de r o n t e s t i f i e d t o t he c o nt r ary. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t he deput y’ s t es t i m ony m or e c r edibl e, and w e w i l ln ot c as ual l y di st urb t hat d e te r m in a tio n , e s p e c ia llyw h e n re v ie w in gfo rcle a re r r o r . Uni t e d S tat e sv. Cas t e ne da , 9 51 F. 2d4 4, 4 8 ( 5th Ci r . 19 92 )
. W e l o o k t o s i x fac t o r s i n r e vi e w i ng t he v o l unt ar i ne s s o f

ac o ns e ntt o s e ar c h:

“ 1) t he v o l unt ar i ne s s o f t he de fe nda nt ’ s c us t o di als t at us ; 2 ) t he pr e s e nc e o f c o e r c ive po l i c e pr o c e dur e s ; 3) t he e xt e nt and l e ve l o f t he d e fe n d a n t ’s c o o p e r a t io n w it h th e p o li c e ; 4 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s a w a r e n e s s o f h is r ig h tto r e fu s e c o n s e n t ; 5 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s e duc at i o n a nd i nt e l l i ge nc e ; a nd 6 ) t he de fe nda nt ’ s b e l i e f t hatno in c r im in a tin ge v id e n c e w ill b e fo u n d .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 23 4 F
. 3 d23 4 , 24 2 ( 5 thC i r. 2 0 0 0 ). Z am bran o does not ch a l l en ge o n a p p e a lthe distri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n gs tha t th e se con dthro u gh si xth fac t or s of

t he c ons enti nqui r y w ei ghed i n favorof f i ndi ng t hathi s c ons entw as vo l unt ary. The o nly fac t o rc hall e nge d b y Zam brano i s t he f i r s tfac t o r , t he
v o lu n ta r in e s s o f h is cu s to d ia l s ta tu s . Se ei d. Za m br anoha s no t , f o rt he r e as o ns n ot ed ab ove, show n t h at h e w as bei n g detai n ed w h en he ga ve consen tt o searc h h i s tru ck
. E ve n if h e w a s be i n g d eta i n edf or p u rp ose s of th e F ou rthA m en d m en t, h o w e v e r , h e w a s n o t t h e n u n d e ra r r e s t o rino ffic ia l cu s to d y , see Un itedS t ate s v. Pon ce , 8 F. 3d 989, 997 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) , and given the di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngsN o. 08- 40126

4 w it h r e s p e c tto th e o t h e rfa c t o r s , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s fi n d i n gth a tZ a m b r a n o ’s
consen tw as vol u n t ary w as not c l earl y erroneou s. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.