UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RAMIRO VALLEJO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the arresting officer had probable cause to search the vehicle and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an in-court experiment.
Vallejo was convicted of possession of marihuana with intent to distribute after his vehicle was searched at a Border Patrol checkpoint. The officer s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Vallejo was convicted at a bench trial of one count of possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S. C.A. § 841(a)(1). Vallejo contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence; and in refusing to allow an in-eourt experiment to test the arresting officer’s ability to identify marihuana by smell.
Vallejo’s vehicle was searched at the Sarita, Texas checkpoint. The Border Patrolman was entitled to stop the vehicle at this permanent checkpoint for brief questioning concerning citizenship of the occupants. Having smelled marihuana emanating from the car’s interior the officer had probable cause to search it. Sifuentes v. United States, 5 Cir. 1975 (unpublished), affirmed sub. nona., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116, (1976); United States v. Kalie, 5 Cir. 1976, 538 F. 2d 1201; United States v. Rojas, 5 Cir. 1976, 538 F. 2d 670.
At the trial, Vallejo’s counsel proposed that some plastic baggies containing marihuana and four other substances be submitted to the arresting officer, to test his ability to differentiate the odor of marihuana. Vallejo contends that the trial court’s refusal to allow him to conduct this in-court experiment constituted an abuse of discretion and violated his Sixth Amendment rights. We disagree. The conditions of the proposed experiment differed substantially from those which existed at the time of the principal event. See United States v. Squella-Avendano, 5 Cir. 1973, 478 F. 2d 433, 439.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio, 702 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. Astroff, 556 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Blanford, 566 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1976)
- United States v. Squella-Avendano, 478 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Valentine Kalie, 538 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Rojas, 538 F.2d 670 (5th Cir. 1976)