United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 73-2390. Summary Calendar.

Citation488 F.2d 1246
Decision Date25 January 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-2390. Summary Calendar.,73-2390. Summary Calendar.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel QUINTANA-GOMEZ and Guillermo Ceron, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Mario N. Herce, Tampa, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Guillermo Ceron.

Anthony F. Gonzalez, Tampa, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Manuel Quintana-Gomez.

John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Claude H. Tison, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted, after a jury trial, on counts of importing and possessing 2½ lbs. of cocaine, and each received concurrent 5-year sentences on each of the two counts. The cocaine had been discovered by customs officers during a border search which occurred two miles from the banana boat Maya, on which appellants served as crewmen. The officers had kept appellants under surveillance for several hours before the search, and had trailed them from the Maya. The boat itself had been staked out because of its history of carrying drugs from Colombia, and because of an anonymous tip.1

This appeal challenges the search, and also the prosecution's use of the fact that appellants did not tell arresting officers an exculpatory story they introduced at trial.

As for the search, appellant Ceron argues that it was not a border search and that it thus had to be supported by probable cause. This contention is without merit. See Walker v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 404 F.2d 900; Davis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 693.

Both appellants contend that even if the search were a border search it was not supported by reasonable suspicion. In order to explain our contrary conclusion we need only note the Maya's suspicious status, and also outline appellants' behavior after they left the ship with other crewmen about 9:00 p.m., and went with them to a bar. After a series of phone calls by a co-defendant (who has not appealed his conviction), the three men were picked up by an unknown driver. They proceeded along a twisting, evasive route, eventually losing customs officers who were tailing them. They returned to the Maya about 11:30 p.m. and departed again about 1:00 a.m. They went to another bar, made a call, hailed a taxi, and with a fourth man went about two miles from the dock. After having waited several minutes in front of a closed furniture store, they were apprehended and searched.

Appellants' final point of appeal concerns the government's response to their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Chapman v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 3, 1977
    ...what this court had allowed in a series of decisions subsequent to Chapman's trial but prior to Hale. See e. g., United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 488 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Ramirez, 441 F.2d 950 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 91, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).......
  • Minor v. Black, 74--2242
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 8, 1975
    ...v. Bennett, 317 N.E.2d 834 (Mass.App.1974), but see United States v. Harp, 513 F.2d 786, 790 (5th Cir. 1975), United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 488 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir. 1974), United States ex rel. Burt v. State of New Jersey, 475 F.2d 234, 237 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 938, 94 S.Ct.......
  • ET v. George
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • January 7, 2010
    ... ... No. 2:09-cv-01950 FCD DAD ... United States District Court, E.D. California ... relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and ... such as pre-trial conferences, different calendar arrangements, split trials, and the like, and ... ...
  • State v. Zeko
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1979
    ...and hence admissible to contradict the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest. See United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 488 F.2d 1246, 1248 (5th Cir. 1974); Agnellino v. New Jersey, 493 F.2d 714 (3d Cir. 1974).5 The court stated in Doyle: "The State has not claimed that such ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT