UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ELISEO ANDRADE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1977-01-24
No. 76-2329
Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
545 F.2d 1032 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1977) Caution
Cited by 16 cases

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.


Holding

Stopping vehicles at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint and searching them upon probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant's vehicle was stopped at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint, and the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle provided probable cause …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s vehicle was stopped for routine determination of citizenship at the permanent Border Patrol checkpoint 7 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas. During that questioning, the Border Patrolman noticed a strong odor of marihuana emanating from the vehicle. A search revealed 225 pounds of marihuana in the trunk.

This Court has previously held the checkpoint seven miles south of Falfurrias to be a permanent one. United States v. McCrary, 5 Cir. 1976, 543 F. 2d 554; United States v. Garza, 5 Cir. 1976, 539 F. 2d 381, 382; United States v. Cantu, 5 Cir. 1974, 504 F. 2d 387, 389. Stopping vehicles at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint to inquire into the occupants’ citizenship does not offend the Fourth Amendment or require á judicial warrant. Sifuentes v. United States, aff’d sub nom. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976).

A search at a permanent checkpoint is valid, if, after stopping the vehicle, the Border Patrolman finds probable cause for the search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975); United States v. Santibanez, 5 Cir. 1975, 517 F. 2d 922. The odor of marihuana emanating from appellant’s vehicle gave the officer probable cause to detain appellant and search his car. United States v. McCrary, supra; United States v. Kidd, 5 Cir. 1976, 540 F. 2d 210; United States v. Garza, supra; United States v. Torres, 5 Cir. 1976, 537 F. 2d 1299.

In conformity with the requirements established by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have carefully considered this cause in its entirety, and conclude that there is no arguable merit in the appeal. It is therefore ordered that the motion filed by Kenneth L. Yarbrough for leave to withdraw as court-appointed counsel for appellant is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Local Rule 20. See also United States v. Minor, 5 Cir. 1971, 444 F. 2d 521 and United States v. Crawford, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F. 2d 1085.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (13 total)

View all 13 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw