Court Opinion

ID: 9402546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 00:01:01.404163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.658107
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10856         Document: 00516789010             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10856
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  June 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Roberto Chairez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-495-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Roberto Chairez was convicted, at a jury trial, of attempted possession
   with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession of a
   firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. He argues that the
   district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained
   during the traffic stop that led to his arrest because the officer’s questioning,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10856      Document: 00516789010          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                    No. 22-10856

   request for consent to search his car, and prolonged detention tainted his
   consent.
          On appeal from a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we
   review factual findings for clear error and the legality of police conduct de
   novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party,
   here, the Government. See United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.
   2010), modified on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.
   2010). “Factual findings are clearly erroneous only if a review of the record
   leaves [us] with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
   committed.” United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95, 101 (5th Cir. 2009)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether the record
   demonstrates reasonable suspicion is a question of law that we review de
   novo. See United States v. Jaquez, 421 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2005).
          The record shows that, after communicating with the Drug
   Enforcement Administration, the police officer had reasonable suspicion to
   suspect Chairez was part of a drug trafficking scheme. In light of the officer’s
   reasonable suspicion that Chairez was involved in criminal activity, he fails
   to demonstrate that the officer unduly prolonged his traffic stop. See
   Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355 (2015); United States v. Reyes,
   963 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2020); Pack, 612 F.3d at 350-51; United States v.
   Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Likewise, the
   officer’s request for consent was reasonably related to dispelling reasonable
   suspicion developed before or during the stop, and there was no Fourth
   Amendment violation that tainted the consent to search the vehicle. See
   Brigham, 382 F.3d at 508-09; United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th
   Cir. 1993)
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2