Task: songer_search

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court below improperly rule for the prosecution on an issue related to an alleged illegal search and seizure?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". If a civil suit brought by a prisoner or a criminal defendant in another action that alleges a tort based on an illegal search and seizure, also consider the issue to be present in the case.

PER CURIAM:
In a sparsely inhabited location about a mile from the Rio Grande Mexican border at about 8:45 on the evening of December 3, 1974, a border patrolman observed six men .of apparent Mexican origin each of whom was carrying a large sack and one of whom was wearing a pistol. They disappeared into an area covered with heavy brush. The patrolman alerted another patrolman who, about two miles away and two hours later, saw a car on an infrequently traveled road leading from the area into which the sack-carriers had entered. After following the car a short distance the patrolman stopped the car. The appellant was driving. Six others, Mexicans, were also in the car. A sack of marijuana was observed through a car window. A search disclosed other marijuana in the trunk of the car. In all 193 pounds of marijuana were found.
The appellant Canales and five others were indicted. He moved to suppress the marijuana on the ground that the search of the car without a warrant was illegal. The district court held the search valid and denied the motion. Canales was convicted of possessing the marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), and of conspiring to possess the marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). Canales has appealed, asserting error in the denial of his motion to suppress and that the evidence does not support the conviction on the conspiracy count.
The district court’s determination that the facts were sufficient to give the border patrol reasonable suspicion to stop the car is not erroneous, and since the stop was lawful and a portion of the marijuana was in plain view, the search was proper. United States v. Dixon, 5th Cir. 1976, 506 F.2d 899 [73-3910]; United States v. Lara, 5th Cir. 1975, 517 F.2d 209.
The challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conspiracy conviction need not be considered. While it may be doubtful that the evidence was sufficient to prove the conspiracy with which Canales was charged, the sentence for that offense was to run concurrently with the sentence for possession and any error as to the conspiracy conviction was harmless. United States v. Ramirez, 5th Cir. 1975, 506 F.2d 742; United States v. Strickland, 5th Cir. 1975, 509 F.2d 273.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: Did the court below improperly rule for the prosecution on an issue related to an alleged illegal search and seizure?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A