Opinion ID: 65371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Rodriguez's Driving Behavior

Text: Rodriguez's fourth challenge to the reasonableness of the stop centers on the weight the agents accorded his glancing frequently in the rearview mirror, crossing the yellow line in the road, and moving over to the shoulder and slowing down. This addresses the tenth ground the Government claims supported reasonable suspicion. The single case Rodriguez cites in support of this claim, United States v. Jones, 149 F.3d 364 (5th Cir.1998), bolsters it only superficially. One question in Jones was whether looking at a law enforcement officer in the rearview mirror and drifting off the road as a consequence could support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Id. at 370-71. However, in that case, the officer was tailgating the suspect; the court thus found that when the officer's actions are such that any driver, whether innocent or guilty, would be preoccupied with his presence, then any inference that might be drawn from the driver's behavior is destroyed. Id. at 370. There is no allegation that any of the agents tailgated Rodriguez or otherwise caused him to drive in the erratic manner in which he was alleged to have driven. Therefore, Coronado's inferences based on Rodriguez's frequent glancing in his rearview mirror and swerving are not destroyed. They were properly part of the totality of the circumstances that led to the stop. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. 744 (divide-and-conquer strategy not valid against Terry totality-of-the-circumstances test). This is true under both the clear error and de novo standards of review.