Court Opinion

ID: 9352124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 01:00:18.992778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:01.419242
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40029   Document: 00516597428   Page: 1   Date Filed: 01/04/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                           ____________
                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                            Fifth Circuit
                            No. 22-40029
                                                          FILED
                          Summary Calendar
                                                    January 4, 2023
                          ____________
                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                              Clerk

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Ilse Ivon Solis,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-40088
                          Summary Calendar
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Mercedes Galvan,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-40029         Document: 00516597428             Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                         No. 22-40029
                                       c/w No. 22-40088

                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 6:19-CR-30-2, 6:19-CR-30-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Following their conditional guilty pleas to conspiracy to possess with
   the intent to distribute methamphetamine and individual sentencings, Ilse
   Ivon Solis and Mercedes Galvan appeal the district court’s denials of their
   motions to suppress. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, this
   court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the
   ultimate constitutionality of the actions by law enforcement de novo. United
   States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified on denial of reh’g,
   622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). The evidence is viewed in the light most
   favorable to the prevailing party, here the Government, Pack, 612 F.3d at 347,
   and the district court’s ruling will be upheld “if there is any reasonable view
   of the evidence to support it.” United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838,
   841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The appellants do not challenge the validity of the initial traffic stop
   but argue that the arresting officer, Sgt. Randy Thumann, did not develop
   further reasonable suspicion to prolong their detention beyond the initial
   purposes of the stop and that their subsequent consent to search given during
   their illegally prolonged detention was invalid. The appellants urge that Sgt.
   Thumann’s actions were based on little more than the recent registration of
   an older vehicle and purportedly vague travel plans, noting that, when the

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

                                                2
Case: 22-40029      Document: 00516597428          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                    No. 22-40029
                                  c/w No. 22-40088

   records check came back clear, Sgt. Thumann knew only that the defendants
   were residents of Laredo who were traveling with unsecured children on I-10
   in an older model car that was newly registered en route to Houston, which
   facts they contend were not sufficiently suspicious, especially as they
   exhibited no nervousness and provided consistent statements to
   Sgt. Thumann. The appellants acknowledge that Sgt. Thumann also knew
   that the car’s license plate had traveled across the border from Mexico earlier
   that morning but assert that there was no evidence proving at that time that
   the car itself or the women in it had done so and thus that any suspicion on
   Sgt. Thumann’s part was merely a hunch which did not justify additional
   investigation.
          Viewing the evidence in the aggregate and in the light most favorable
   to the Government, the district court did not err in determining that
   Sgt. Thumann had developed reasonable suspicion of additional criminal
   activity while investigating the original stop based on the appellants’
   traveling along the drug corridor of I-10 in a newly registered older model
   vehicle that he knew had crossed the border from Mexico only hours earlier
   and where he believed that the defendants had lied about having come from
   or traveled to Mexico. See Pack, 612 F.3d at 347, 360; see also United States
   v. Andres, 703 F.3d 828, 834 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Lopez-Moreno,
   420 F.3d 420, 431 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d
   753, 759 (5th Cir. 1999). Sgt. Thumann’s suspicion was not a mere hunch
   but was reasonably based on his knowledge of the license plate check and the
   proximity in time from the border crossing to the stop; contrary to the
   appellants’ suggestion, he did not need additional proof that the car itself or
   the women in it actually drove across the border. See United States v. Estrada,
   459 F.3d 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2006); Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d at 759; see also
   United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274, 277 (2002).

                                         3
Case: 22-40029        Document: 00516597428          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                      No. 22-40029
                                    c/w No. 22-40088

             In sum, Sgt. Thumann had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
   apart from the initial traffic violation to continue the stop for the relatively
   short additional three-minute period during which he obtained consent to
   search from the appellants.       See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696,
   709 (1983); see also Pack, 612 F.3d at 362. The district court therefore
   properly denied the defendants’ motions to suppress. See Michelletti, 13 F.3d
   at 841.
             Solis’s appointed counsel on appeal, David Klein, has moved for leave
   to withdraw and for the appointment of substitute counsel. The motion to
   withdraw and for appointment of new counsel is GRANTED. The Clerk
   shall appoint new counsel to advise Solis of her right to file a petition for
   certiorari.
             The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

                                           4