IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41002
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEPHAN BOUDWIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
1:00-CR-152-ALL
--------------------
February 28, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellee Stephan Boudwin appeals his conditional
guilty plea and the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress the evidence against him. Boudwin argues that his initial
stop and prolonged detention by the police violated his Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to
suppress, we review questions of law de novo, "but questions of
fact are accepted unless the district court's findings were clearly
erroneous, or influenced by an incorrect view of the law." United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 1996). The evidence
is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party,
unless this view is inconsistent with the district court's findings
or is clearly erroneous based on the evidence as a whole. Id. at
419.
The district court properly characterized the officer’s
initial contact with Boudwin as a “consensual encounter” under
United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 145 (5th Cir. 1995).
According to Cooper, an officer may generally approach any person
to ask for identification or ask a question, as long as the officer
does not imply that compliance is required. Cooper, 43 F.3d at
145. Therefore, the officer did not violate Boudwin’s Fourth
Amendment rights when she approached him at the fuel island and
asked for his identification and his reason for being there.
The district court also found that once the officer approached
Boudwin, the immediate “indication and aroma of marijuana coming
from the defendant and the car and the visible signs that the
defendant displayed while the officer was standing there . . .,”
generated probable cause to arrest him. Therefore, the initial
stop and detention of Boudwin did not violate his Fourth Amendment
rights. Based on these facts, the district court properly
determined that the search and seizure were legal and did not
violate Boudwin’s Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the
conditional nature of his guilty plea is unavailing, and his
conviction is
AFFIRMED.
2
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\01\01-41002.0.wpd
4/29/04 5:45 pm
3