Court Opinion

ID: 9890444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 00:00:34.642472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:18.150615
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40121        Document: 00516929755             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                     October 12, 2023
                                      No. 23-40121
                                    Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Andres Salas, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:22-CR-1367-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:*
         Andres Salas, Jr., entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of
   transporting an alien within the United States, reserving the right to appeal
   the denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during the stop of
   his vehicle along Highway 281 near San Manuel, Texas, by a U.S. Border
   Patrol agent. He contends there was no reasonable suspicion to justify the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40121      Document: 00516929755           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                     No. 23-40121

   stop. We disagree and affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to
   suppress.
          When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review legal
   conclusions de novo, including the district court’s conclusion that reasonable
   suspicion existed for the stop, and we review factual findings for clear error.
   United States v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2015). “Reasonable
   suspicion requires more than merely an unparticularized hunch, but
   considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the
   evidence.” United States v. Garza, 727 F.3d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). “Factors that ordinarily constitute
   innocent behavior may provide a composite picture sufficient to raise
   reasonable suspicion in the minds of experienced officers.” Cervantes, 797
   F.3d at 329 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          To determine whether reasonable suspicion exists in this context, this
   court examines the totality of the circumstances and weighs the factors set
   forth in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). They are not
   exclusive, United States v. Garcia, 732 F.2d 1221, 1223 (5th Cir. 1984), and
   include:
          (1) the area’s proximity to the border; (2) characteristics of the
          area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agents’ experience in
          detecting illegal activity; (5) behavior of the driver; (6)
          particular aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7)
          information about recent illegal trafficking of aliens or narcotics
          in the area; and (8) the number of passengers and their
          appearance and behavior.
   Cervantes, 797 F.3d at 329.
          The district court concluded that “there [was] reasonable suspicion
   based on [the] totality of circumstances.” Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 60:18-19,
   United States v. Salas, No. 22-01367 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2023), ECF No. 63

                                          2
Case: 23-40121       Document: 00516929755             Page: 3      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                        No. 23-40121

   (“Hr’g Tr.”).1 The district court pointed to the presence of the “previously
   identified known scout vehicle” driving ahead of Salas. Id. at 60:22-25. Salas
   argued that the scout vehicle’s presence could not go to reasonable suspicion
   because it drove approximately six minutes ahead of the vehicle Salas was
   driving, but the district court rejected this argument on the grounds that it
   was likely that a scout vehicle would travel some distance ahead of a “load”
   vehicle. Id. at 61:1-11.       Indeed, our court has recognized that “some
   distance . . . must be maintained if the lead car is to be of any use in alerting
   the load car of checkpoints and patrols,” United States v. Barnard, 553 F.2d
   389, 392 n.6 (5th Cir. 1977), though “[r]easonable suspicion cannot result
   from the simple fact that two cars are traveling on a roadway . . . ,one in front
   of the other,” without more, United States v. Rangel-Portillo, 586 F.3d 376,
   382 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The district court then turned to two
   of the agent’s observations about Salas’s vehicle: the vehicle was “pitched in
   a manner reflecting a heavy load in the rear trunk area, that’s indicative
   of . . . people being secreted in the cargo compartment,” Hr’g Tr. at 61:15-
   18, and “the odd behavior of the passenger, who attempt[ed] to secrete
   himself from view, and also [the] odd behavior of all the passengers who s[a]t
   rigidly facing forward,” id. at 61:22-25. The district court did not err in
   concluding that that these factors support the presence of reasonable
   suspicion. See Garcia, 732 F.2d at 1224-25; United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez,
   916 F.2d 1011, 1014-16 (5th Cir. 1990).
          The district court also looked to testimony that the vehicle slowed
   down to ten-to-fifteen miles below the speed limit and continued at that slower
   speed, Hr’g Tr. at 62:17-20, which can support a finding of reasonable

          _____________________
          1
            Contrary to Salas’s contention on appeal, the district court expressly “put no
   weight” on the agent’s observation that the vehicle driven by Salas swerved. Hr’g Tr. at
   62:8-9.

                                              3
Case: 23-40121     Document: 00516929755          Page: 4   Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                   No. 23-40121

   suspicion, United States v. Samaguey, 180 F.3d 195, 199 (5th Cir. 1999); see
   also United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano, 721 F.3d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (recognizing that continuing to drive below speed limit may contribute to
   reasonable suspicion depending on circumstances). Finally, the district court
   noted that the Border Patrol agent who conducted the stop “kn[ew] what to
   look for” because of his experience patrolling the area, Hr’g Tr. at 63:8-11,
   which also goes to the presence of reasonable suspicion, Garza, 727 F.3d at
   441.
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                        4