UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
98-50815
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AGUSTIN BARRON-SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(DR-98-CR-6-1)
______________________________________________
June 17, 1999
Before GARWOOD, DUHÉ and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Agustin Barron-Salazar appeals from his conviction
on two counts of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8
U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). On appeal, appellant raises the claim
that the stop of the vehicle in which he was riding was not
justified We disagree and affirm the judgment of the district
court.
A Border Patrol agent conducting a roving patrol may make a
temporary investigative stop of a vehicle only if he is aware of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from
those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicle is
involved in, or its occupant engaged in, criminal activity. See
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); United
States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-22 (1981).
Factors relevant to whether a Border Patrol agent acted with
reasonable suspicion include:
(1) known characteristics of a particular
area, (2) previous experience of the arresting
agents with criminal activity, (3) proximity
of the area to the border, (4) usual traffic
patterns of that road, (5) information about
recent illegal trafficking in aliens or
narcotics in the area, (6) the behavior of the
vehicle's driver, (7) the appearance of the
vehicle, and (8) the number, appearance and
behavior of the passengers.
United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 722 (5th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Villalobos, 161 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1998).
Reasonable suspicion is to be determined by considering the
totality of the circumstances. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 421-22; United
States v. Kohler, 836 F.2d 885, 888 (5th Cir. 1988). Although any
single factor standing alone may be insufficient, under the
totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, the absence of a particular
factor will not control a court's conclusion. United States v.
Cardona, 955 F.2d 976, 980 (5th Cir. 1992).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
government, there were several specific articulable facts and
rational inferences from those facts supporting a reasonable
suspicion that the vehicles' occupants were engaged in the criminal
activity of illegally transporting aliens.
2
The truck in which appellant was a passenger and a white
Lincoln which was also stopped were traveling north in tandem
twenty-two miles from the border on a road with little traffic.
This route north from the border on which the truck traveled would
circumvent a permanent check point. The Border Patrol agent that
stopped the vehicles had three years of experience and stated that
he had performed about twenty-five arrests in the area of the stop
the prior year. Before stopping the vehicles, the agent
ascertained that the two vehicles were registered to owners in the
same city living on the same street. The agent had observed
occupants of the white Lincoln slouch down trying to hide.
Finally, the vehicles were inconsistent with the types of ranch
vehicles commonly used on a road which usually had little traffic.
Viewing the totality of the circumstances presented here, we find
that the Border Patrol agent acted with reasonable suspicion in
stopping the truck in which appellant was riding as well as the
white Lincoln. Having rejected appellant's only claim, we
pretermit a determination of the government's other arguments in
support of the judgment of conviction.
AFFIRMED
3