United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50921

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Laura Lizbeth Rivera Ramos,

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:22-CR-510-1 

______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Laura Lizbeth Rivera Ramos entered a conditional guilty plea to one 

count of conspiracy to transport aliens within the United States in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (b)(i) and was sentenced to 12 months 

and one day of imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. 

She reserved her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress evidence 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50921 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024
No. 23-50921

2

discovered from the investigatory stop of her vehicle by Deputy Brandon 

Rowe. 

When reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress, we review the 

constitutionality of the stop de novo and factual findings by the district court 

for clear error. United States v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2015).

Review is “particularly deferential” in assessing the district court’s factual 

findings “based on live oral testimony.” United States v. Ortiz, 781 F.3d 221, 

226 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The legality of a traffic stop is examined under the two-pronged 

analysis described in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). United States v. 

Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004). This appeal centers on the first 

Terry prong—whether the deputy’s decision to conduct an investigatory stop

was justified at its inception by reasonable suspicion. See id.

Traffic stops are supported by reasonable suspicion of unlawful 

activity when the officer has “specific and articulable facts which, taken 

together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the 

seizure. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. Reasonable suspicion is a “low threshold” 

requiring only a “minimal level of objective justification.” United States v. 

Smith, 952 F.3d 642, 648 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Courts will consider the totality of the circumstances, 

including the experience and any specialized training the officer has. Id.

Even ordinarily innocent behavior can help to establish a “composite picture 

sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion in the minds of experienced officers.”

United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2001).

Here, the totality of the circumstances established reasonable 

suspicion. Rivera Ramos was intercepted in an area and at a time of high 

human smuggling frequency. See United States v. Morales, 191 F.3d 602, 604-

05 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 582 (5th Cir. 1999); 

Case: 23-50921 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2024
No. 23-50921

3

United States v. Soto, 649 F.3d 406, 409-10 (5th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, her 

truck was riding low as if heavily loaded, and Deputy Rowe had prior

experience with human smuggling events involving many individuals in the 

truck bed, which caused the back of the truck to be weighed down. See

Orozco, 191 F.3d at 582; Morales, 191 F.3d at 605-07.

Deputy Rowe also testified that he momentarily observed individuals 

concealed in the truck bed. See United States v. Varela-Andujo, 746 F.2d 

1046, 1048 (5th Cir. 1982). Though Rivera Ramos argues that the dash 

camera did not support Deputy Rowe’s testimony, Deputy Rowe testified 

that the dash camera did not capture the moment of his observation. 

Additionally, Rivera Ramos’s re-creation of the stop was not sufficiently 

similar to the traffic stop to refute Deputy Rowe’s testimony. 

Thus, the traffic stop was justified at its inception based on reasonable 

suspicion. See Brigham, 382 F.3d at 506; Ortiz, 781 F.3d at 226. Accordingly, 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50921 Document: 53-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2024