Court Opinion

ID: 9461077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:05:20.504205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:52.977983
License: Public Domain

OPINION
Before BARNES, HUFSTEDLER and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a trial to the court, Madueno-Astorga, was convicted of possession of about 660 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He appeals on the ground that the stop and search of his automobile were without probable cause and were thus invalidated by Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). We affirm.
About 6:50 a.m. while on routine patrol driving east on Interstate 8 about ten miles from the border, two border agents noticed that appellant’s automobile appeared “to drift” on a curve in the road. The agents followed it in their car and observed that the auto had a large trunk and a heavy duty suspension system on the rear axle and “kept on having characteristic problems of balance of a real heavy — heavily loaded car — .” After following the vehicle for about two miles, the agents stopped it to *821determine whether appellant was transporting illegal aliens.
On approaching the halted car, one of the agents smelled the strong, sweet mixed odor of marijuana and talcum powder issuing from it. When asked to open the trunk, appellant said he had no key to it and that the car belonged to a friend for whom he was driving it to San Diego. The agents removed the rear seat of the vehicle and saw the marijuana in kilo packages covered with talcum powder, a practice which they knew smugglers used to mask the odor of marijuana.
Almeida-Sanchez, supra, does not apply where, as here, the border patrol agents had a founded suspicion, which may be less than probable cause, for stopping the vehicle for the purpose of limited inquiry in the course of routine investigation. United States v. Bugarin-Casas, 484 F.2d 853-854 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Jaime-Barrios, 494 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1974).
The events after the stop provided clear probable cause to search the vehicle.
Affirmed.