Court Opinion

ID: 9901096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 01:00:37.136468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.804767
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40045         Document: 00516974482             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/20/2023

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

                                             FILED
                                      ____________
                                                                              November 20, 2023
                                       No. 23-40045                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Felipe De Jesus Gutierrez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:19-CR-612-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Felipe De Jesus Gutierrez conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of
   possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
   violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (defining
   principals), reserving his right to contest the denial of his motion to suppress
   evidence.      He challenges the district court’s denial at the end of an

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40045      Document: 00516974482            Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                     No. 23-40045

   evidentiary hearing of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his
   vehicle and his post-arrest confession. (Gutierrez testified at the hearing.)
          For the contested denial of a suppression motion, our court reviews
   “the factual determinations for clear error and the legal conclusions de
   novo”. United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation
   omitted). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing
   party, in this instance the Government. See United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d
   352, 356–57 (5th Cir. 2005).
          First, Gutierrez challenges the court’s finding reasonable suspicion
   justified the stop of his vehicle. “Reasonable suspicion is a low threshold,
   requiring only a minimal level of objective justification.” United States v.
   Alvarez, 40 F.4th 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). The officers
   responded to a tip containing a range of details related to the planned drug
   transaction, including predictive information. See Alabama v. White, 496
   U.S. 325, 332 (1990) (highlighting importance of tip’s prediction of future
   conduct); Powell, 732 F.3d at 369 (“Reasonable suspicion can be formed by a
   confidential informant’s tip so long as the information is marked by indicia of
   reliability.” (citation omitted)). The officers independently corroborated the
   tip and observed predicted activities.           Based on the totality of the
   circumstances, reasonable suspicion supported the stop of Gutierrez’
   vehicle. E.g., Alvarez, 40 F.4th at 345 (“Reasonable suspicion takes into
   account the totality of the circumstances . . . .” (citation omitted)).
          Next, Gutierrez asserts the search of his vehicle violated the Fourth
   Amendment’s warrant requirement. We hold the officers had probable cause
   to search Gutierrez’ tractor-trailer when a dog alerted to the presence of
   narcotics in it. See United States v. Ned, 637 F.3d 562, 567 (5th Cir. 2011)
   (permitting warrantless searches of automobiles if supported by probable
   cause); Resendiz v. Miller, 203 F.3d 902, 903 (5th Cir. 2000) (“A drug-

                                          2
Case: 23-40045        Document: 00516974482        Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                    No. 23-40045

   sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to support probable cause
   for a search.”).
          Nor did Gutierrez show the officers’ actions converted the stop into
   an arrest. See United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200, 206–07 (5th Cir. 1993)
   (“[U]sing some force on a suspect, pointing a weapon at a suspect, ordering
   a suspect to lie on the ground, and handcuffing a suspect—whether singly or
   in combination—do not automatically convert an investigatory detention
   into an arrest requiring probable cause.”).
          Finally, Gutierrez contends his confession was involuntary and not
   sufficiently attenuated from his claimed illegal arrest to be admissible. The
   testimony at the suppression hearing establishes Gutierrez: initiated the
   meeting with the officers following his initial request for an attorney; was
   never threatened or coerced; and was aware of his rights but waived them.
   Gutierrez’ confession was therefore voluntary. See Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S.
   42, 45–46 (1982) (explaining once suspect invokes right to counsel,
   government may not interrogate him further unless he initiates); United
   States v. Mendez, 885 F.3d 899, 910–11 (5th Cir. 2018) (concluding statement
   was voluntary where defendant was twice advised of Miranda rights,
   voluntarily waived them, there was no evidence of physical coercion, and
   defendant was not threatened). And, because we hold Gutierrez’ arrest was
   constitutional, his confession was also not the fruit of an illegal arrest. See
   United States v. McCowan, 469 F.3d 386, 390 (5th Cir. 2006) (ruling arrest
   permissible when officers have probable cause to conclude suspect
   committed offense). Gutierrez’ contention that the delay in presenting him
   to a magistrate judge was unreasonable is likewise incorrect because the
   reasons for delay, including case-processing, were permissible. E.g., United
   States v. Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d 327, 337 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he McNabb–

                                          3
Case: 23-40045       Document: 00516974482      Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                 No. 23-40045

   Mallory doctrine tolerates delays related to legitimate law enforcement
   procedures . . . .”).
          AFFIRMED.

                                      4