UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ELIZANDRO BRAVO GARCIA, 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 reasonable suspicion is not necessary for a border patrol agent to conduct a preliminary search at the functional equivalent of a border.
A border patrol agent stopped Garcia at a checkpoint, smelled marijuana, and searched his car, finding marijuana in the trunk. Garcia argued the searc…
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 Illegally Seized Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Garcia was stopped at the Sari-ta, Texas border checkpoint by a border patrol agent. While questioning Garcia about his citizenship, the agent thought he smelled marijuana. The agent asked Garcia to open the trunk of the car and found marijuana inside it.
Garcia argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the marijuana as illegally seized evidence. Garcia concedes that Sarita is the functional equivalent of a border, as held in United States v. Reyna, 572 F. 2d 515 (5th Cir. 1978). See Moreno v. United States, 579 F. 2d 371 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 1217, 59 L.Ed.2d 456 (1979). However, Garcia contends that a border search can be justified only on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity. He argues that the border agent did not have a reasonable suspicion when he opened Garcia’s car door and projected his body “halfway into the car” to question Garcia.
However, we read the cases in this circuit to say that probable cause, or even reasonable or articulable suspicion is not necessary at the functional equivalent of a border for the agent to conduct the preliminary search of leaning into a car. United States v. Moreno, supra, United States v. Chaplinski, 579 F. 2d 373 (5th Cir. 1978), United States v. Ivey, 546 F. 2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977). If reasonable suspicion was necessary for the more intrusive search of the trunk, it was supplied by the smell of the marijuana. United States v. Arrasmith, 557 F. 2d 1093, 1094 (5th Cir. 1977).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Ivey, 546 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Leonel Reyna, 572 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Elvia Escamilla Moreno, 579 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Chaplinski, 579 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Arrasmith, 557 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1977)