TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Adan Serna Torres

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adan Serna TORRES, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Torres, 537 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 1, 1976
Docket
No. 76-2229
Judges
Ainsworth, Clark, Roney
Citations
537 F.2d 12991976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7299

Opinion — Ainsworth

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge:

Adan Serna Torres, appellant, was stopped for a citizenship check at the Border Patrol’s permanent Falfurrias, Texas checkpoint on December 5, 1974.

1

During the citizenship inquiry the officer detected the odor of marijuana emanating from appellant’s automobile. A subsequent search revealed 198 pounds of marijuana in the trunk.

Appellant’s motion to suppress the marijuana was unsuccessful, and he was found guilty.

Stopping vehicles at a permanent Border Patrol checkpoint to inquire into the occupant’s citizenship does not offend the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3074 , 49 L.Ed.2d - (1976).

2

A search at a permanent checkpoint is valid if, after stopping the vehicle, the Border Patrolman finds probable cause for the search. See 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 marijuana emanating from the vehicle is probable cause justifying the search.

United States v. Cantu, 5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 387 .

We reject appellant’s argument that he should have been permitted to conduct an in-court experiment to test the Border Patrol officer’s sense of smell by using herbs and spices as well as marijuana. The district court’s refusal of the experiment *1301 was justified because the conditions of the proposed experiment might differ substantially from those existing at the time the officer smelled marijuana from appellant’s car.

United States v. Squella-Avendano, 5 Cir., 1973, 478 F.2d 433 .

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

.

See United States v. Cantu, 5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 387 . Judge Wisdom stated in Cantu , “Border Patrol agents operated the checkpoint as the functional equivalent of a permanent station, although the location was varied slightly from time to time to make evasion more difficult.” 504 F.2d at 389 . Although the trial court held this checkpoint to be the functional equivalent of the border, it is not necessary for us to consider the correctness of this finding. The checkpoint was clearly a permanent checkpoint.

2

. In Martinez-Fuerte, the Supreme Court in discussing the three kinds of inland traffic-checking operations used to minimize illegal immigration, said:

“Permanent checkpoints, such as those at San Clemente [California] and Sarita [Texas], are maintained at or near intersections of important roads leading away from the border.

They operate on a coordinated basis designed to avoid circumvention by smugglers and others who transport the illegal aliens.” -U.S. at -, 96 S.Ct. at 3080 . [Emphasis supplied.] In relation to the Mexican border the towns of Sarita and Falfurrias are similarly situated. Falfurrias is located at the intersection of Texas Highway 285 and U. S. Highway 281. Highway 281 runs north and south and parallels U. S. Highway 77 to it east on which Sarita, Texas, is located. Highways 281 and 77 both intersect Texas Highway 285, which runs east and west across the southern tip of Texas. Falfurrias is closer than Sarita to- both the western and southern borders of Mexico.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1976: 61977: 111978: 31983: 11996: 119762026peak 1977 · 11

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Maria Hernandez Leal547 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir. 1977)
  2. Lewis v. State933 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1996)
  3. United States v. Arnoldo Cantu Garza547 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1977)
  4. United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio702 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1983)
  5. United States v. Sixto Mireles570 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1978)
  6. United States v. Gary Woody, United States of America v. Blanchard L. Savant567 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Lewis v. State933 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1996)
  2. United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio702 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1983)
  3. United States v. Sixto Mireles570 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1978)
  4. United States v. Gary Woody, United States of America v. Blanchard L. Savant567 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1978)
  5. United States v. Roy Lee Blanford566 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1978)
  6. United States v. Catarino Capatillo Gutierrez560 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Cantu, 504 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1974) 18
United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) 446
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) 1,657
United States v. Squella-Avendano, 478 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1973) 41
United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list