Court Opinion

ID: 9386808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 18:00:32.624751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.652478
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50518         Document: 00516710850             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50518
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  April 13, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Clim Eugene Murphy Thomas,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-577-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Clim Murphy Thomas appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the
   evidence underlying his convictions of aiding and abetting possession with
   intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marihuana and possession of a
   firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. He maintains that the initial
   encounter with Border Patrol agents was nonconsensual and violated his

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50518       Document: 00516710850           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                      No. 22-50518

   Fourth Amendment rights.
            When considering a motion to suppress, this court reviews “the dis-
   trict court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including
   its ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement
   action, de novo.” United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002).
   Whether a person has been seized or detained and Fourth Amendment pro-
   tections are triggered is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. United
   States v. Mask, 330 F.3d 330, 334–35 (5th Cir. 2003).
            If, as in this case, a defendant claims he has been seized in the absence
   of physical force, this court “analyze[s] the encounter in two steps: whether
   the officer exerted a sufficient show of authority; and whether defendant sub-
   mitted to it.” United States v. Wright, 57 F.4th 524, 531 (5th Cir. 2023). In
   analyzing whether an officer has made “a sufficient show of authority,” a
   reviewing court “considers whether, in the light of ‘all of the circumstances
   surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he
   was not free to leave.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S.
   544, 554 (1980)). A consensual encounter where an individual voluntarily
   agrees to speak with the officers “does not amount to a ‘seizure’ under the
   Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 145 (5th Cir.
   1995).
            The Border Patrol agents approached in a single vehicle rather than
   both vehicles. Upon seeing the agents, Murphy Thomas got up from where
   he was seated and approached them, offering his driver’s license un-
   prompted. Murphy Thomas and his codefendant interacted with the agents
   and moved about freely during the encounter. Moreover, before observing
   the illegal narcotics in plain view, the agents did not make any demands of
   Murphy Thomas. To the contrary, Murphy Thomas voluntarily approached
   one of the agents and answered his questions.

                                               2
Case: 22-50518     Document: 00516710850           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                    No. 22-50518

          Murphy Thomas places much emphasis on his race. Although not
   irrelevant, that factor is not decisive. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 558. That
   the agents were armed and in uniform has little weight, and neither bran-
   dished his weapon. See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 204–05
   (2002).
          Totality of the circumstances supports the conclusion that there was
   no seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Wright, 57 F.4th
   at 531. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             3