Roa-Rodriquez v. United States, 10155.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 10155.,10155. |
| Citation | 410 F.2d 1206 |
| Parties | Carlos ROA-RODRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John D. Murphy, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.
John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WARREN L. JONES,* BREITENSTEIN and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant Rodriquez was found guilty by a jury of the transportation of unlawfully imported narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. His appeal is grounded on the admission of evidence allegedly obtained through an illegal search.
On January 26, 1968, two inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service were maintaining traffic surveillance on a through highway in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, which is located about ninety miles north of the Mexican border. About 10:00 P.M. they observed and stopped a car which bore Arizona license plates and which was traveling north. Preliminary questioning developed that the driver, defendant Rodriquez, was a citizen of the United States. The passenger, Venega, was a Mexican national who carried a nonresident alien border crossing card which authorized him to visit in the United States for a period of 72 hours or less and in the area within 150 miles of the Mexican border. He and his companion had entered the United States at Nogales, Arizona, on the day of these occurrences. Inspector Cheadle asked Rodriquez where they were going and he said Albuquerque, which is more than 150 miles from the border. Cheadle then asked Venega to get out of the car for further questioning. Venega said that he was going to El Paso which is on the border. Meanwhile inspector Schoeman, in accordance with routine procedures, asked Rodriquez to open the trunk so that he could ascertain if an alien was concealed there. Rodriquez did so and the inspection revealed nothing but a jacket. Cheadle placed Venega under arrest for violation of his entry permit. Then Cheadle asked Rodriquez to open the trunk, ostensibly for the purpose of checking whether there were any papers indicating the intention of Venega to work in the United States contrary to the entry permit. He saw the jacket and asked whose it was. Rodriquez said that it was his. Cheadle felt of the jacket and discovered two packages which he opened. He suspected that the contents were narcotics. It later developed that the packages contained about 11 ounces of heroin. Rodriquez was arrested and the two were taken to jail where they were examined later that night by customs officers who had been summoned from El Paso.
Venega was not indicted. Rodriquez moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the search was incidental to a lawful arrest of Venega.
This was not a border search by customs officers at a point of entry or check point. Cf. Ramirez v. United States, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 385, and Marsh v. United States, 5 Cir., 344 F.2d 317, 324. There was no suspicious conduct by the occupants of the car at the border or otherwise and there was no hot pursuit from the border. Cf. Murgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 285 F.2d 14, and Kelly v. United States, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 162. The immigration officers were engaged in a highway patrol and had no reason to stop the car except for their observation of the occupants and the license plates. The occupants were not previously known to the officers.
The term "reasonable distance" as used in the statute has been defined to mean "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a) (2). The events under consideration occurred within that distance. In the circumstances the initial stop and search for aliens were proper. See Fernandez v. United States, 321 F.2d 283, 286.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McCormick
...external boundary of the United States meets the term "reasonable distance" as used in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) (3). Roa-Rodriguez v. United States, 410 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir. 1969). Roa-Rodriguez reversed the conviction of Rodriguez for unlawful importation of narcotics, holding that the inspectio......
-
United States v. Peltier 8212 2000
...approving alien searches by roving patrols without either probable cause or any suspicious conduct was in 1969. Roa-Rodriquez v. United States (10th Cir.), 410 F.2d 1206. And the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, unlike the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, always required at least a 'reasona......
-
Lopez-Mendoza v. INS
...includes a holding in this regard or resulted in any exclusion of evidence from a deportation proceeding. See Roa-Rodriquez v. United States, 410 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir.1969); Klissas v. INS, 361 F.2d 529 (D.C.Cir.1966); United States v. Montez-Hernandez, 291 F.Supp. 712 The majority also refe......
-
United States v. Almeida-Sanchez
...United States v. Kandlis, supra, 432 F.2d 132; Valenzuela-Garcia v. United States, 425 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1970); Roa-Rodriquez v. United States, 410 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir. 1969; Montoya v. United States, 392 F.2d 731, (5th Cir. 1968); Contreras v. United States, 291 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1961); ......
-
When the constable behaves and the courts blunder: expanding the good-faith exception in the wake of Arizona v. Gant.
...(upholding constitutionality of roving patrol searches without "reasonable suspicion" requirement); Roa-Rodriguez v. United States, 410 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1969) (upholding search when border-patrol agent is acting in compliance with statute). But see United States v. Wright, 476 F.2......
-
Founded Suspicion: the Ninth Circuit's Response to Almeida Sanchez
...(9th Cir. 1970) (agent discovered marijuana when looking under the hood of the automobile for aliens); Roa Rodri quez v. United States, 410 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir. 1969) (agent found heroin inside jacket in the trunk); Barba Reyes v. United States, 387 F.2d 91 (9th Cir. 1967) (agent smelled ma......