IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20824
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO EDWAR CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-656-2
--------------------
August 28, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricardo Edwar Cruz is appealing his convictions for
conspiracy, aiding and abetting possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, and aiding and abetting importation of
cocaine. Cruz argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person because
there was no probable cause to arrest him and the agents did not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20824
-2-
have a reasonable suspicion that he was engaging in criminal
activity at the time that he was detained.
The initial search of Cruz’s cabin on the ship at the border
did not require probable cause or even an articulable suspicion
by authorities. See United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1147
(5th Cir. 1993). The evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Government, showed to a reasonable certainty
that Cruz was in possession of the drugs at the time that he
crossed the border and that he retained possession of the drugs
until his detention. The information obtained from the captain
and the evidence discovered during the routine border search were
sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion justifying the
surveillance of Cruz and the extended border search. See id.;
United States v. Hopes, 286 F.3d 788, 788 (5th Cir. 2002),
petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 24, 2002) (No. 02-5005).
Because the evidence was seized as a result of a valid extended
border search, the district court did not err in denying the
motion to suppress.
The search was also properly conducted as a patdown search
for weapons in connection with a valid stop. See Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). Cruz’s conviction is AFFIRMED.