TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Ramiro Vallejo

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro VALLEJO, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Vallejo, 541 F.2d 1164 (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
November 5, 1976
Docket
No. 76-2415
Judges
Godbold, Dyer, Hill
Citations
541 F.2d 11641976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6361

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Vallejo was convicted at a bench trial of one count of possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.

*1165 C.A. § 841(a)(1). Vallejo contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence; and in refusing to allow an in-eourt experiment to test the arresting officer’s ability to identify marihuana by smell.

Vallejo’s vehicle was searched at the Sarita, Texas checkpoint. The Border Patrolman was entitled to stop the vehicle at this permanent checkpoint for brief questioning concerning citizenship of the occupants. Having smelled marihuana emanating from the car’s interior the officer had probable cause to search it.

Sifuentes v. United States, 5 Cir. 1975 (unpublished), affirmed sub. nona., United States v. Mar tinez-Fuerte,-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 3074 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 , (1976);

United States v. Kalie, 5 Cir. 1976, 538 F.2d 1201 ;

United States v. Rojas, 5 Cir. 1976, 538 F.2d 670 .

At the trial, Vallejo’s counsel proposed that some plastic baggies containing marihuana and four other substances be submitted to the arresting officer, to test his ability to differentiate the odor of marihuana. Vallejo contends that the trial court’s refusal to allow him to conduct this in-court experiment constituted an abuse of discretion and violated his Sixth Amendment rights. We disagree. The conditions of the proposed experiment differed substantially from those which existed at the time of the principal event.

See United States v. Squella-Avendano, 5 Cir. 1973, 478 F.2d 433, 439 .

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 41978: 11983: 11984: 11994: 11996: 119772026peak 1977 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lewis v. State933 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1996)
  2. United States v. Albert Strong552 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1977)
  3. United States v. Ramon Alberto Cantu555 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1977)
  4. United States v. Harry Greenspan, AKA Alfred A. Lugo, AKA Alfred Anthony Lugo, AKA Alex Lugo, AKA Alex Stone26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)
  5. United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio702 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1983)
  6. United States v. Mark Bruce Astroff and Robert Duane Steverson556 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Lewis v. State933 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1996)
  2. United States v. Harry Greenspan, AKA Alfred A. Lugo, AKA Alfred Anthony Lugo, AKA Alex Lugo, AKA Alex Stone26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)
  3. United States v. Oyarzun582 F. Supp. 121 (W.D. Tex. 1984)
  4. United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio702 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1983)
  5. United States v. Roy Lee Blanford566 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1978)
  6. United States v. Mark Bruce Astroff and Robert Duane Steverson556 F.2d 1369 (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 4

DepthCaseCited by
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. Kalie, 538 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1976) 9
United States v. Rojas, 538 F.2d 670 (5th Cir. 1976) 5

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