UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RAMON ALBERTO CANTU, 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 district court did not err in refusing an in-court experiment to test the arresting officer's ability to identify marijuana by smell.
Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after a Border Patrolman smelled marijuana in his vehicle, leading to a 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.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Ramon Alberto Cantu, was convicted at a bench trial of one count of possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in refusing to allow an in-court experiment to test the arresting Border Patrolman’s ability to identify marihuana by smell.
Appellant’s vehicle was stopped for a citizenship check at the permanent checkpoint seven miles south of Falfurrias, Texas. Upon smelling a “strong odor” of marijuana and the odor of a spray deodorant coming from the interior of the vehicle, the officer had probable cause to search it. United States v. Vallejo, 5 Cir. 1976, 541 F. 2d 1164. The search revealed 270 pounds of marihuana in the trunk of the vehicle, resulting in appellant’s arrest and these proceedings.
At the combined bench trial1 and hearing on his motion to suppress, defense counsel requested permission to test the officer’s ability to detect the smell of marihuana when mixed with other strong odors. Counsel proposed to test the officer by means of five packets containing, respectively, marjoram, tarragon, basil, oregano with coriander, and molokheia, some of them mixed with marihuana. The district court’s refusal of this request is assigned as error on appeal.
We find no error in the ruling complained of. It is in accord with two of our recent decisions. United States v. Vallejo, supra; United States v. Torres, 5 Cir. 1976, 537 F. 2d 1299. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. At arraignment on April 23, 1976, defendant waived reading of the indictment, pled not guilty, and signed a written waiver of speedy trial.
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. Legeza, 559 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Adan Serna Torres, 537 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Vallejo, 541 F.2d 1164 (5th Cir. 1976)