United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50518

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Clim Eugene Murphy Thomas,

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-577-1 

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Clim Murphy Thomas appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the 

evidence underlying his convictions of aiding and abetting possession with 

intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marihuana and possession of a 

firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. He maintains that the initial 

encounter with Border Patrol agents was nonconsensual and violated his 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 13, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50518 Document: 00516710850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023
No. 22-50518

2

Fourth Amendment rights.

When considering a motion to suppress, this court reviews “the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including 

its ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement 

action, de novo.” United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Whether a person has been seized or detained and Fourth Amendment protections are triggered is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. United 

States v. Mask, 330 F.3d 330, 334–35 (5th Cir. 2003). 

If, as in this case, a defendant claims he has been seized in the absence 

of physical force, this court “analyze[s] the encounter in two steps: whether 

the officer exerted a sufficient show of authority; and whether defendant submitted to it.” United States v. Wright, 57 F.4th 524, 531 (5th Cir. 2023). In 

analyzing whether an officer has made “a sufficient show of authority,” a 

reviewing court “considers whether, in the light of ‘all of the circumstances 

surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he 

was not free to leave.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 

544, 554 (1980)). A consensual encounter where an individual voluntarily 

agrees to speak with the officers “does not amount to a ‘seizure’ under the 

Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 145 (5th Cir. 

1995).

The Border Patrol agents approached in a single vehicle rather than 

both vehicles. Upon seeing the agents, Murphy Thomas got up from where 

he was seated and approached them, offering his driver’s license unprompted. Murphy Thomas and his codefendant interacted with the agents 

and moved about freely during the encounter. Moreover, before observing 

the illegal narcotics in plain view, the agents did not make any demands of 

Murphy Thomas. To the contrary, Murphy Thomas voluntarily approached 

one of the agents and answered his questions. 

Case: 22-50518 Document: 00516710850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2023
No. 22-50518

3

Murphy Thomas places much emphasis on his race. Although not 

irrelevant, that factor is not decisive. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 558. That 

the agents were armed and in uniform has little weight, and neither brandished his weapon. See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 204–05 

(2002). 

Totality of the circumstances supports the conclusion that there was 

no seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Wright, 57 F.4th 

at 531. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50518 Document: 00516710850 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/13/2023