United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 11, 2004
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
NO. 01-50858
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEE ARTURO CHACON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
P-00-CR-412-F
Before GARWOOD, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case returns to the panel following remand to the
district court to determine the proper scope of the immigration
inspection at issue and to evaluate whether probable cause existed
to arrest Chacon. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 323, 329
(5th Cir. 2003) (“Chacon I”). Having now reviewed the factual
findings and legal determinations made by the district court on
remand, we find them consistent with this court’s precedents and
therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of Chacon’s motion to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate Chacon’s
conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2000, Border Patrol Agent Jade A. Woodruff
boarded an Americanos bus originating in El Paso, Texas, at the
Sierra Blanca immigration checkpoint. Agent Woodruff proceeded
through the bus asking for identification and questioning the
occupants regarding their immigration status. When Agent Woodruff
approached Chacon and his juvenile companion, Julio Carrillo, to
inquire about their citizenship, they identified themselves as
U. S. citizens. Agent Woodruff, noting that the two gave somewhat
awkward responses, continued to the back of the bus and inspected
the restroom in the rear. While heading back to the front of the
bus, Agent Woodruff noticed the luggage stowed under Chacon’s and
Carrillo’s seats and began to wonder if the bags might contain
narcotics. He then stopped next to the two passengers and began to
question them regarding their itinerary and the contents of their
luggage. After obtaining consent to search the bags, Agent
Woodruff discovered a nine-pound bundle of marijuana in Carrillo’s
bag. The two were arrested and escorted off the bus.
During the proceedings before the district court, Chacon
moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search
and his statements made following the search. The district court
initially denied this motion in an order dated May 25, 2001.
2
Chacon then conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, and was sentenced,
inter alia, to ten months of imprisonment. On appeal, this panel
noted that the district court had “made no explicit finding whether
Agent Woodruff had or had not completed his immigration inquiries
of Chacon and Carrillo as he walked from the rear to the front of
the bus (or whether the bus’s immigration detention was unduly
prolonged.)” See Chacon I, 330 F.3d at 329. The district court
also “failed to address Chacon’s argument that Agent Woodruff
lacked probable cause to arrest him simply because he was traveling
with a juvenile who was carrying marijuana in his baggage.” Id.
On remand, the district court found that Agent Woodruff had
completed his immigration inquiries of Chacon and Carrillo by the
time he returned from the back of the bus. See United States v.
Chacon, 2003 WL 22231298, at *4 (W.D. Texas, Sept. 19, 2003)
(“Chacon II”). Because the district court found that Agent
Woodruff’s additional questioning of Chacon and Carrillo did not
conform to the immigration purpose of the initial stop, it held
that under this court’s decision in United States v. Portillo-
Aguirre, 311 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2002), the detention was unduly
prolonged and was therefore improper under the Fourth Amendment.
Chacon II, 2003 WL 22231298 at *7-*10. As a result, the district
court reversed its initial denial of Chacon’s motion to suppress
and granted the motion as to all the evidence derived from the
search, as well as Chacon’s subsequent statement. Chacon II, 2003
3
WL 22231298 at *11. The district court also decided that, even if
the search had been constitutional, Agent Woodruff would not have
had the requisite probable cause to arrest Chacon merely because he
was traveling with Carrillo. Id. at *12-*13. This appeal
followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
When analyzing a ruling on a motion to suppress, this
court reviews questions of law de novo and findings of fact for
clear error. See Chacon I, 330 F.3d at 326 (citing United States
v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).
B. Scope of the Stop
Acting at the behest of this court, on remand the
district court undertook a comprehensive review of the evidence
adduced at trial and noted that Agent Woodruff made “five
unequivocal statements to the effect that he had completed the
immigration purpose of the stop” before proceeding from the back of
bus toward the front. See Chacon II, 2003 WL 22231298 at *3. At
the same time, however, two other statements made by Agent Woodruff
on cross-examination appeared to conflict with his statements that
he had completed the immigration purpose of the stop. Id. To
reconcile the statements, the district court carefully examined
their context and determined that Agent Woodruff had resolved the
immigration status of both Chacon and Carrillo before he prolonged
4
the detention of the bus through his questioning. Id. at *4.
Regardless how this court might have evaluated the transcript, we
find no clear error in this factual finding.
The district court accordingly determined that Agent
Woodruff’s additional questioning of Chacon and Carrillo was not
objectively reasonable because it did not conform to the justifying
purpose of the stop — determining the citizenship status of persons
traveling through the Sierra Blanca checkpoint. Id. at *5-*7. The
district court applied this court’s decision in Portillo-Aguirre,
a case involving the same checkpoint, the same Border Patrol agent
and a similar factual scenario. In Portillo-Aguirre, this court
held that where a border patrol agent has completed the immigration
purpose of a stop, questioning that unduly prolongs the duration of
the stop may be improper under the Fourth Amendment. See United
States v. Portillo-Aguirre, 311 F.3d at 657 (holding that “if an
agent does not develop reasonable suspicion of [criminal] activity
before the justifying purpose of a checkpoint stop has been
accomplished, he may not prolong the stop”). The district court’s
legal determination, based on its factual determination that the
immigration purpose of the stop was completed before the stop was
extended by Agent Woodruff’s additional drug-interdiction
questions, necessarily follows from Portillo-Aguirre.
Notwithstanding this case, we continue to read Portillo-
Aguirre to hold only that where an agent acknowledges that the
immigration purpose of a stop has been completed, further
5
questioning may impermissibly extend the stop, and we reiterate
that Portillo-Aguirre “does not establish an inflexible rule
concerning immigration checkpoints that limits agents to one set of
questions.” Chacon I, 330 F.3d at 327-29. Moreover, there is no
evidence here, based on the court’s findings, that the agent was
alerted to additional facts that might have raised a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity as he was proceeding down the aisle
after checking the bathroom. As a result, the evidence seized as
a result of the improper search, as well as Chacon’s statements to
authorities following his arrest, must be suppressed.
C. Probable Cause for Arrest
Because we have affirmed the district court’s suppression
ruling, we need not reach the question whether probable cause
existed to arrest Chacon.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we AFFIRM the district
court’s grant of the motion to suppress and REMAND with
instructions to vacate Chacon’s conviction.
6