Court Opinion

ID: 9954374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 00:01:57.69183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:06.146595
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40337            Document: 61-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/25/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                    No. 23-40337                       March 25, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                  ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Gilbert Sandoval,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:22-CR-346-1
                   ______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Gilbert Sandoval entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing with
the intent to distribute Alprazolam and possessing a firearm in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime. He reserved his right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress the evidence recovered following a traffic
stop of his vehicle, which occurred after a 911 caller reported a domestic

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40337       Document: 61-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/25/2024

                                 No. 23-40337

disturbance in progress at the caller’s home. On appeal, Sandoval argues that
the traffic stop was not justified at its inception because officers lacked
reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop. We pretermit a full discussion of
the applicable standard of review because we conclude that Sandoval’s
arguments fail even under the more lenient standard. See United States v.
Haggerty, 997 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2021).
       Sandoval’s reliance on United States v. Jaquez, 421 F.3d 338 (5th Cir.
2005), is misplaced, as the tip here was not so generic to preclude a finding
of reasonable suspicion, namely because it contained a precise location of the
vehicle at issue, the direction that vehicle was headed, and information
regarding its occupant. We also conclude that the citizen-informant here was
credible and reliable, the officers corroborated the tip through their own
observations, and the officers conducted the stop quickly after the 911 call.
See United States v. Gomez, 623 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2010).
       Further, Sandoval’s contention that the officers had no reasonable
grounds to suspect him of engaging in criminal activity at the time of the stop
is also unpersuasive. The district court’s finding that the officers were
responding to a domestic altercation is not clearly erroneous in light of the
record. See United States v. Roper, 63 F.4th 473, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2023). In
addition, for a brief investigatory stop of a vehicle, “the Fourth Amendment
is satisfied if the officer’s action is supported by reasonable suspicion to
believe that criminal activity may be afoot.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S.
266, 273 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the
district court properly accounted for the totality of the circumstances—
including the facts known to the officers regarding the prior shooting at the
911 caller’s home—when determining whether Sandoval’s conduct on
August 15, 2021, gave rise to reasonable suspicion. See United States v.
Alvarez, 40 F.4th 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2022).         We are unpersuaded by
Sandoval’s argument that, because he was stopped shortly after the 911 call

                                      2
Case: 23-40337        Document: 61-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/25/2024

                                 No. 23-40337

nearby the caller’s house, rather than at her house, officers no longer had
reasonable suspicion to investigate the reported domestic altercation. See
Gomez, 623 F.3d at 267-69. In sum, the district court’s conclusion that the
stop was constitutional is reasonable based on the record. See Arvizu, 534
U.S. at 273; United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753, 759 (5th Cir. 1999);
United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430 (5th Cir. 2005).
       We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                       3