* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

October 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40458

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-406-ALL

--------------------

Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Flores appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle during a

traffic stop. He argues that the state trooper, Jorge Lopez,

detained him for an unreasonable amount of time in violation of his

Fourth Amendment rights after the trooper checked his Mexican

driver’s license, his American insurance policy, and his temporary

Mexican permit displayed in the rear windshield of his vehicle.

Flores has not shown that the district court erred in denying his
2

motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle. The

documents provided by Flores were not sufficient to establish

Flores’s ownership of the vehicle. It was not reasonable to expect

that Lopez would know the legal significance of the temporary

Mexican permit. Lopez’s request for documentation and questioning

concerning Flores’s travel plans were within the scope of his

investigation and did not extend the duration of the stop

unreasonably. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508-11

(5th Cir. 2004). 

Further, Flores’s answers to Lopez’s questions raised

additional suspicions as Flores stated he had a business of

distributing blenders, but he was driving to San Antonio to

purchase used cars for resale in Mexico. Flores stated a friend

had found used cars for him to purchase, but later stated that he

did not know the makes and models of the cars. Flores stated that

he was going to stay with a friend who lived off of Military Road,

that he had never been there, but that he would be able to find it

without explanation. Flores stated that he had spoken to his

friend a few days earlier, but later stated that his friend did not

have a telephone. Flores’s answers and his apparent nervousness

caused Lopez to become suspicious. The duration of the stop was

not unreasonable as only six minutes elapsed from the time of the

initial stop to the time that Lopez obtained consent to search the

vehicle. After Lopez examined the manifold of the truck and found

numerous pry marks, he had probable cause to believe that the
3

manifold contained contraband and, therefore, he had probable cause

to ask Flores to follow him to the Falfurrias checkpoint for a more

thorough search. 

Because Lopez’s questions were within the scope of his

investigation and did not extend the duration of the detention

unreasonably under the totality of the circumstances, the district

court did not err in denying Flores’s motion to suppress the

evidence. See Brigham, 382 F.3d at 506-07. 

AFFIRMED.