IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41414
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(L-00-CR-192)
September 6, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Antonio Hernandez-Hernandez appeals his conviction for
conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute in
excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana. Hernandez argues that the
district court should have suppressed the evidence obtained in a
stop of his vehicle near the Mexican border because federal agents
lacked reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was involved in
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
illegal activity. We agree with the district court that the
federal agents had reasonable suspicion.
I
On January 26, 2000, at 12:15 p.m., Laredo North Station
Border Patrol agents received a dispatch that hidden seismic
sensors had been triggered within the 5 D Ranch. The 5 D Ranch is
located in the “Mines Road” area, which is a 5-7 mile stretch
between the San Isabelle Creek and the Columbia Bridge. The 5 D
Ranch borders the Rio Grande River, which separates Texas from
Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Darren Louck proceeded to the 5 D
Ranch and set up surveillance of the main gate.
Within thirty minutes, Agent Louck saw a black Dodge pickup
truck arrive at the main gate. The Dodge had been customized to
ride lower to the ground and had wide tires, which Louck concluded
was not the type of vehicle associated with agricultural work on
the ranch. Louck also concluded that the Dodge did not belong to
ranch employees – he was familiar with the ranch workers and their
three vehicles. Louck’s suspicion was additionally aroused by the
fact that agricultural traffic always used another gate closer to
the fields and that no crops were being grown at this time. Louck
saw the driver of the Dodge unlock the gate (which had a
combination lock on it) and drive inside.
2
Sensor activity inside the 5 D Ranch continued for the next 30
minutes. Agent Louck then observed two men in a black Ford pickup
truck approach the main gate to leave the ranch. Agent Louck also
did not recognize the Ford as one of the vehicles belonging to
employees of the ranch. Close behind the Ford was the Dodge, which
followed the Ford out of the gate, whereupon the driver of the
Dodge closed the gate, and both trucks drove South on Mines Road.
His suspicion aroused by the vehicles traveling as a pair and
not belonging to anyone who worked at the ranch, the proximity of
the ranch to the border, the seismic sensor warnings, and the large
amount of drugs that had been seized on this particular stretch of
road over the last several months, Agent Louck communicated his
observations to his supervisor, Agent Rick Martinez. Martinez then
stopped the Ford to conduct an immigration inspection. The
occupants of the Ford provided Martinez with a story about their
business at the ranch which Martinez did not believe. Subsequently
the Dodge was stopped by two other Border Patrol agents and
Martinez. The agents saw marijuana in plain view in the back seat
of the truck, and proceeded to seize the marijuana and arrest
Hernandez. At this time, the Ford drove past and Hernandez
identified its occupants as the men who had hired Hernandez to
transport the marijuana. The two occupants of the Ford were also
arrested.
Hernandez was tried before the court on stipulated facts.
Hernandez moved pretrial for suppression of all evidence obtained
3
as a result of the Border Patrol stop of his vehicle. The district
court overruled the motion following a hearing. Hernandez was
convicted of conspiracy possess with intent to distribute more than
100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) and with possession with intent to
distribute approximately 1340 pounds of marijuana in violation of
21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He now
appeals his conviction.
II
We review the district court’s finding that the stop was
justified by reasonable suspicion de novo.1 We view evidence from
the suppression hearing in this case in the light most favorable to
the Government.2
Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle during a roving patrol
without violating the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement
when the agents “are aware of specific articulable facts, together
with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant
suspicion...” that the vehicle is being employed in illegal
activities, such as the transportation of illegal aliens.3 We have
1
United States v. Chavez-Chavez, 205 F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir. 2000).
2
Id.
3
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975).
4
held that Border Patrol agents can consider several factors in
deciding whether to stop a vehicle, including: “(1) characteristics
of the area where the vehicle is encountered; (2) proximity to the
border; (3) the usual traffic pattern on the road; (4) previous
experience with criminal activity; (5) information about recent
criminal activity in the area; (6) the driver’s behavior; (7) the
appearance of the vehicle, its type and whether it appears loaded;
and (8) the number, appearance, and behavior of the passengers.”4
Utilizing these factors, and viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government, we believe that the Border Patrol
agents had reasonable suspicion to stop Hernandez’s vehicle.
Hernandez urges us to reverse the district court in part because
his knowledge of the combination on the lock to the gate provided
some objective evidence that he was authorized to enter the ranch.
In contrast, Hernandez notes, we found reasonable suspicion in
Inocencio when “the ranch owners had specifically identified the
vehicles that were authorized to access the private ranch road.”5
Hernandez misses the mark. “Reasonable suspicion ... is not
limited to an analysis of any one factor.”6 In fact, in Inocencio
we expressly noted that one such factor, proximity to the border,
4
Chavez-Chavez, 205 F.3d at 148 (citing United States v. Inocencio, 40
F.3d 716, 722 (5th Cir. 1995)).
5
Inocencio, 40 F.3d at 723.
6
Id. at 722.
5
was absent.7 Nevertheless, we held that this was not dispositive
and that the federal agents in that case had reasonable suspicion.
While Hernandez points to certain factual dissimilarities between
this case and Inocencio, this ignores that other factors weigh more
heavily in favor of reasonable suspicion in this case, such as the
seismic sensor alerts and the proximity of the 5 D Ranch to the
border.
III
For these reasons, Hernandez’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
7
Id. at 723.
6