IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50369
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAVIER TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(DR-01-CR-117-1-FP)
--------------------
November 7, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Javier Torres appeals from his conditional
guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He
contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to
suppress evidence found by Border Patrol Agents in the trunks of
two inoperable automobiles that were located on property owned by
his parents within 25 miles of the border. Torres argues, contrary
to the articulation of the border patrol agents, that there were no
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the two
vehicles, and that, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the
search was not authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). We disagree.
A border patrol agent testified that he followed tracks from
the border area to the trunk of a "junked" vehicle and that the
trunk appeared to have been opened recently. He further testified
that, on three previous occasions, he had discovered illegal aliens
hiding in the trunks of vehicles. Based on findings that the
border patrol agents could reasonably believe that persons may have
been inside the trunk and possibly in need of medical assistance,
the district court concluded that exigent circumstances existed.
Even if we assume, without deciding, that Torres had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the vehicles and the property, we are
convinced that the district court's finding of exigent
circumstances based on the need to ensure that no one suffered harm
or injury was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Blount,
123 F.3d 831, 837 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Vasquez, 953
F.2d 176, 179 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
2