UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ABIGAIL RIVERA CANTU AND CRISELDA GARZA BRYANT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 stopping a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint for citizenship checks is constitutional and that the defendants' incriminating statements were voluntary and admissible.
Defendants were stopped at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint where officers detected the odor of marijuana and observed suspicious quilt configurat…
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 Fourth Amendment Probable Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1244] PER CURIAM:
Defendants were stopped for a citizenship check at the permanent checkpoint near Falfurrias, Texas. During the questioning, the Border Patrol officer noticed a suspicious configuration of the quilt covering the rear seat of their vehicle and detected the odor of marijuana. A search of the vehicle revealed approximately 200 pounds of marijuana in the back seat and trunk.
Stopping a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint to determine citizenship does not offend the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). The visual observations and odor detected gave the officer probable cause to search defendants’ car. United States v. Torres, 537 F. 2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1976).
Defendants made incriminating statements after they had twice been advised of their constitutional rights, both in English and Spanish. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The district court conducted a hearing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (1970), to determine the voluntariness of defendants’ statements and found that their statements were voluntary. Accordingly, the district court permitted testimony concerning the statements to be admitted as evidence to the jury. The jury was properly instructed on voluntariness as well as the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (1970). The judgments of conviction and sentences appealed from are
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Jackson, 652 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 1981)
-
United States v. Colon-Padilla, 770 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir. 1985)
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- 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. Adan Serna Torres, 537 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1976)