Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Eliseo Andrade

United States v. Eliseo Andrade, 545 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1977)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-01-24
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Eliseo Andrade. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ANDRADE,545 F.2d 1032(5th Cir. 1977)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ELISEO ANDRADE,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 76-2329.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 24, 1977.
Page 1033
Kenneth L. Yarborough (Court-appointed), Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.

[2] 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 a 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 Statesv. Garza, supra; United States v. Torres,5 Cir. 1976,537 F.2d 1299.

[3] In conformity with the requirements established byAnders 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 alsoUnited States v. Minor,5 Cir. 1971,444 F.2d 521andUnitedStates v. Crawford,5 Cir. 1971,446 F.2d 1085.Page 182
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; seeIsbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩