IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50942
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORETO HERNANDEZ, also known as Laredo Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-99-CR-517-OG
--------------------
August 31, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Loreto Hernandez argues that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress because the facts presented at the
suppression hearing show that Border Patrol agents did not have a
reasonable suspicion that Hernandez was involved in criminal
activity. In the context of the denial of a motion to suppress,
we review the district court's factual findings for clear error
and the ultimate conclusion, that the facts supported a
reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory stop,
de novo. United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 721 (5th Cir.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-50942
-2-
1994); United States v. Zapata-Ibarra, 212 F.3d 877, 881-82 (5th
Cir. 2000).
A roving Border Patrol agent may stop a vehicle if the
agent's observations lead him reasonably to suspect that the
occupants of a particular vehicle may be involved in criminal
activity. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881
(1975). The factors to be taken into account in determining
whether "reasonable suspicion" exists, include: the
characteristics of the area; its proximity to the border; the
usual patterns of traffic on a particular road and previous
experience with alien traffic; information about recent illegal
border crossings; the driver's behavior; and the vehicle's
appearance, including the type vehicle, appearance of being
heavily loaded, number of passengers, or passengers' behavior.
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 884-885.
The facts articulated by Agent Dale show a vehicle that was
not normally in the area, that was not suited for ranch use, that
was the type used by smugglers, that was traveling a known path
for contraband, and that was apparently trying to avoid border
checkpoints. These facts are specific and were articulated in
clear terms. The district court did not err in concluding that
all of the specific facts considered together supported the stop.
See United States v. Aldaco, 168 F.3d 148, 150 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.