IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40907
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FORREST DAVID HATCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-98-CR-169-1
April 21, 1999
Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Forrest David Hatcher pleaded guilty to one count of transportation
of an alien within the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)
and 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II). He now appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress evidence, which he argues was obtained through
an illegal search pursuant to neither a warrant nor his consent.
Voluntariness of consent is “a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all the circumstances.” Schneckoth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973). This court reviews the district court’s
findings of voluntariness for clear error. See United States v.
*
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the
limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir. 1998). In determining
whether consent was given voluntarily, the district court should analyze
the following six factors:
(1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status,
(2) the presence of coercive police procedures, (3) the
extent and level of the defendant’s cooperation with the
police, (4) the defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse
consent, (5) the defendant’s education and intelligence, and
(6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence
will be found.
Id. at 426. Although all six factors are relevant, none is dispositive.
See id. After a careful review of the record, we find that in the
totality of the circumstances, the factual findings of the district
court were not clearly erroneous.
Hatcher also contends that the search was illegal because the
police officer searched the truck cab without first obtaining consent.
This issue was not raised in the district court and is reviewed for
plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-63 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States v. Arce, 118 F.3d 335, 344 n.8 (5th
Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 705 (1998). Hatcher has not shown
that a plain-view search of the truck cab for contraband while
questioning a passenger contaminated the entire search under the plain
error standard. See United States v. Vargas, 643 F.2d 296, 297 (5th
Cir. 1981) (plain-view search permitted after vehicle is stopped);
United States v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480, 485 (5th Cir. 1994) (police may
question passenger).
AFFIRMED.
2