TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Harrel Lloyd Robinson, Jr.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harrel Lloyd ROBINSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Robinson, Jr., 567 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1978)
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
February 8, 1978
Docket
No. 77-5509
Judges
Ainsworth, Morgan, Gee
Citations
567 F.2d 6371978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12710

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Harrel Lloyd Robinson, Jr., was convicted of possession, with intent to distribute of approximately 235 pounds of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). The contraband was discovered in the trunk of Robinson’s vehicle following a search by an officer of the United States Border Patrol at the Border Patrol checkpoint located 7.8 miles northwest of LaGloria, Texas, on Highway 1017. This search was occasioned when, as the patrolman approached the vehicle to conduct a routine citizenship check, he detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from it.

Robinson contends that the officer lacked probable cause to institute the search, and that, therefore, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the contraband from admission into evidence at trial. The argument is foreclosed by the recent decision in United States v. Alvarez-Gonzalez, 561 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. . 1977), which held the LaGloria checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border and that neither a warrant nor probable cause is required for routine searches conducted there of automobile trunks and other large spaces in which aliens may be concealed.

See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973).

*638 But even were this not so, the La-Gloria checkpoint is a permanent one at which brief, routine stops for immigration checks are permitted.

United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975). The odor of marijuana perceived by the officer during this stop furnished probable cause for further investigation.

Accordingly, the conviction is AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1978: 11982: 11984: 11985: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) 985
United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975) 21
United States v. Alvarez-Gonzalez, 561 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1977) 17

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