*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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.

 

2

 In violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841 (b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The plea was

conditional in the sense that it permitted an appeal of the district court’s ruling as to probable cause.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-40785

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

LUIS ROBERTO CARDENAS-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L-98-CR-3-1)

April 28, 1999

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and DeMoss, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Roberto Cardenas-Flores (Cardenas) entered a conditional guilty plea to aiding and

abetting the possessionwith intent to distribute more than 625 pounds ofmarijuana.2 The conditional

aspect of the plea permitted Cardenas to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress

evidence and motion to suppress the statement. Cardenas now brings just such an appeal before this

Court.

On December 10, 1997, Customs Agent Sergio Trevino received a tip from a confidential

informant that a red and white pick-up truck would be involved in narcoticstrafficking that day, near
 

3

 United States v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1100 (5th Cir. 1993).

 

4

 Id.

the intersection of Gonzalez and Camp streets, in Laredo, Texas. This intersection was a known area

of narcotics trafficking, due at least in part to its close proximity to the Rio Grande. Agent Trevino

arranged for the general area of the intersection to be put under surveillance.

During the course of this surveillance, agents observed a red and white pickup truck parked

in this area. Though they never observed contraband being loaded into the truck, the agents observed

several men around the truck, one of whom entered and exited the truck while the others looked up

and down the surrounding streets. When Cardenas drove the truck away, Agent Trevino followed.

After driving severalblocks, Cardenas pulled the truck over to the curb and exited the vehicle.

After doing so, Cardenas left the driver’s side door of the truck open, and opened the hood. Agent

Trevino then approached Cardenas from the driver’s side of the vehicle, observing through the open

door several large plastic bags, compressed into bundles and caked in mud. Several agents then

arrested Cardenas, and Trevino seized the vehicle, driving it to the Customs Service office. After

being Mirandized, Cardenas stated that he was to drive the vehicle to a specific location and leave

it there, receiving $1000 for his efforts.

Cardenas now asserts that he was arrested without probable cause, and that all evidence and

statements resulting from that arrest should have been suppressed. We review a district court’s

determination of probable cause de novo.3 In doing so, this Court views the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prevailing party, accepting the district court’s findings of fact unless clearly

erroneous.4

Cardenas contends that the government failed to introduce evidence that the informant’s

previous tips had led to arrests or convictions, and also failed to show any basis for the informant’s

knowledge. Cardenas further contends that the evidence the government presented of drug

trafficking is equally consistent with ordinary behavior: people moving cars, looking up and down

the street, and having filled garbage bags in the cab of a pick-up truck.

For probable cause to exist, the officer must have an objectively reasonable beliefthat a crime
 

5

 United States v. Ho, 94 F.3d 932, 935 (5th Cir. 1996).

is being committed, or has just been committed. This objective standard is met when the totality of

the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had

committed or was committing an offense.5

In this case, the agent acted on a tip from an informant, and initiated surveillance. After

observing suspicious activity in an area known for drug trafficking, the agent followed the suspect.

We note that the agent neither pulled Cardenas over norsearched the car. Rather, the agent observed

in plain view evidence which, based on his experience, he concluded was marijuana. Based on the

totality of the circumstances, the district court did not err in finding probable cause. The arrest was

proper, and all evidence obtained as a result thereof was properly held admissible.

AFFIRMED.