Court Opinion

ID: 9464283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:30:00.931199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:33.591387
License: Public Domain

WISDOM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In this case, as in United States v. Villarreal and Martinez, 5 Cir. 1977, 565 F.2d 932, the majority, in effect, overrules United States v. Frisbie, 5 Cir. 1977, 550 F.2d 335. I cannot see a meaningful distinction between the stop in this case and the stop in Frisbie. As I read Frisbie, the law in this circuit compels us to hold that the stop of the Almand vehicle was unlawful; the marijuana seized after the stop should not have been received in evidence.1
*931The majority concedes that , the stop in this case is similar to the stop in Frisbie. Both stops took place in the vicinity of Big Bend National Park between six and seven in the morning; Frisbie was stopped on Highway 118 leading to Highway 90 and Almand was stopped on a nearby parallel road, Highway 385, also leading to Highway 90. Frisbie and Almand triggered some of the same sensor devices. The sensors first picked up both cars near the border on the western edge of Big Bend Park.
The factors considered by the Frisbie panel were similar to those the government relied upon in this case:
the direction the vehicle was traveling, the likelihood that the vehicle was coming from an unpatrolled river area, . the sparsely populated area where the stop occurred, [the Border Patrolman’s] knowledge that local traffic did not normally travel the roads in question at such early hours of the morning and that the route in question was frequently traveled by persons transporting illegal aliens and contraband, with such activity taking place primarily in the late evening and early morning hours.2
550 F.2d at 337.
Frisbie also included an important factor that makes the facts in this case stronger for the defendant than the facts in Frisbie. Frisbie’s truck appeared to be traveling in a convoy with two other vehicles. 550 F.2d at 336-37. This association of vehicles might have been interpreted as a “lead car-load car” convoy. We have held that two cars in proximity on a sparsely traveled road “may understandably raise the officer’s suspicions”. United States v. Barnard, 5 Cir. 1977, 553 F.2d 389, 392.3
None of these circumstances impressed the. Frisbie panel. Instead, the Court agreed unanimously that it could not approve a stop “founded upon dubious ‘suspicious’ circumstances of such slight import” particularly in an area visited by many tourists. 550 F.2d at 338. See also United States v. Escamilla, 5 Cir. 1977, 560 F.2d 1229, at 1232.
According to the majority, the Border Patrolmen possessed more legitimately acquired information-than their colleagues in Frisbie. In particular, the majority notes (1) that Patrolman Wilson knew from the sensor signals that the vehicle he was investigating had stopped or turned off the highway; (2) that Wilson was aware, again from the sensor signals, that there had been no unexplained southbound traffic at the point where he found Almand’s truck pointing south; and (3) that the Patrolmen knew the truck had been recently stopped because its grill was still warm'.4
None of these circumstances is inherently suspicious or an indication of smuggling activity. In a national park area it is not unusual for tourists to drive campers, or to pull over to the side of the road for a nap. Indeed, a smuggler might be expected to continue his trip north rather than to stop by the roadside. The only consequence of the additional information listed by the ma*932jority is to make clearer that Almand’s truck was the vehicle that had passed over the sensors.
This knowledge does not distinguish Fris-bie. There was no doubt that Frisbie’s car was the one that had tripped the sensors. See generally 550 F.2d at 336-38. Uncertainty whether Frisbie’s vehicle had triggered the sensors was not a factor in the Court’s decision that there was no reasonable suspicion that he was doing something illegal.
The majority points out that Almand’s answers to the Border Patrol’s questions were inconsistent with the other information gathered by the officers. Although this factor is included in the section of the opinion discussing the legality of the original stop, it relates only to justifying the expanded questioning that took place after the stop. The majority holds that the stop began when Almand stepped out of the rear of his camper. The questioning occurred after this event. “An observation made after and caused by a stop cannot be bootstrapped into grounds for reasonable suspicion warranting the stop.” United States v. Frisbie, 550 F.2d at 338.
Because I believe the original stop was illegal, I would exclude the evidence discovered during the search of the truck. Even if one assumes that Almand consented to the search, and that the patrolmen acted reasonably, the consent and the evidence are fruits of the poisonous tree, and should be suppressed.
It is easy to find that one border search differs slightly from another. But Frisbie and Almand are as alike as peas in a pod. If the majority of the members of the full court think that Frisbie was wrongly decided, the court en banc can correct the error. Until that happens, I cannot accept bypassing Frisbie by resorting to inconsequential factual differences intended to distinguish the facts in Frisbie from the facts in the case before us.

. The majority notes that the same district judge who excluded the evidence in Frisbie admitted the evidence in this case. This does not mean that the trial judge saw a distinction between the two stops. In fact, the Frisbie Court reversed the trial judge’s conclusion that *931the initial stop was legal. The Frisbie panel was able to affirm because the trial judge refused to admit the evidence for the different reason that questioning after the stop exceeded permissible bounds. The lower court’s decision about the legality of the stop was the same in Frisbie as it was in this case. I would reach the same result as the Frisbie panel: the trial court erred.

. The Frisbie Court also mentioned the government’s argument that Frisbie had difficulty stopping his truck. The panel refused to consider this factor because the Patrolmen learned this fact after the stop began.

. Such an observation does not, in itself, justify a stop. United States v. Barnard, 553 F.2d at 392. The Frisbie Court did not discuss the potential significance of the three vehicle convoy in raising sufficient suspicion for a stop.

. The majority also mentions, without comment, several facts that the government argues are pertinent. These facts are very similar to those found insufficient in Frisbie. Frisbie, unlike Almand, was driving his truck when the Border Patrol made its stop. Therefore, only Almand “refused to respond when first asked to open the door”. A delay in responding to a knock at a camper door in the early morning when the occupant may be asleep can hardly be described as a suspicious circumstance. Moreover, it is clear that by the time the patrolmen were knocking on Almand’s door they had already decided to make the stop.