Opinion ID: 4567072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Education and Intelligence

Text: The district court found that Soriano’s education, although limited, did not indicate that he was susceptible to coercion. The court further observed that Soriano’s previous interactions with police indicated that he was not a newcomer to the law. Moreover, Soriano’s helpful demeanor during the stop, his interaction with the police, and his testimony indicated that he was at least of average intelligence. On these grounds, the district court concluded that this factor weighed “marginally in favor of voluntariness.” We agree. Soriano was 37 years old at the time of his arrest and had completed six years of formal education in Mexico. Officer Rodriguez testified that Soriano seemed able to understand and answer her questions. Our review of the transcript of the traffic stop confirms that Soriano was responsive to Officer Rodriguez’s questions and understood the import of the traffic stop. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court’s finding that Soriano was at least of “average intelligence” was plausible. Accordingly, its determination that this factor “weighs marginally in favor of voluntariness” was not clear error. F. Belief that No Incriminating Evidence will be Found An awareness or belief that no incriminating evidence will be found weighs in favor of a finding of voluntariness. See Shabazz, 993 F.2d at 439. Consequently, an awareness or belief that some incriminating evidence will be found weighs against a finding of voluntariness. The record arguably supports the finding that Soriano did not believe that any incriminating evidence would be found if his car was searched. As noted, Officer Rodriguez asked Soriano “Do you give me permission to check the car?” and he replied, “Check it.” She continued “If I call the dog right now from the checkpoint, do you think it will alert?” Soriano 11 Case: 19-50832 Document: 00515571219 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/18/2020 No. 19-50832 responded, “No, you can bring him.” Likewise, the district court opined that at the time of consent, Soriano had already opened his suitcase to show the officers its contents and that it was possible that he believed a search would not reveal the cocaine because he had already exposed the contents of the suitcase. Nevertheless, the district court still agreed with the MJ’s conclusion that this factor weighed “marginally” against a finding of voluntariness given the lack of evidence on this point. See United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d 1464, 1471 (5th Cir. 1993). Because this conclusion is plausible given the limited record, there was no clear error. Zavala, 541 F.3d at 574.