United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10610
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PHILIP TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:03-CR-122-ALL-J
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Philip Torres appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction
for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine. The Government’s unopposed motion to file a
corrected brief is GRANTED.
Torres argues that the district court erred by denying his
motion to suppress because Texas Department of Public Safety
Trooper Toby Schaef violated the Fourth Amendment by
interrogating him and his co-defendant David Alberto Avila-
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10610
-2-
Coronado (“Avila”) about matters exceeding the scope of the
justification for the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion
that a crime other than the traffic violation had been or was
being committed.
Torres does not challenge the district court’s factual
finding that Trooper Schaef asked for and received consent to
search the vehicle contemporaneously with his issuance of a
citation to Avila. As the issuance of a citation is a
permissible part of a valid traffic stop, the district court did
not err in determining that Trooper Schaef did not extend the
detention beyond the valid traffic stop. See United States v.
Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir. 1993). Although Trooper
Schaef’s interrogation of Torres and Avila exceeded the scope of
the justification for the traffic stop, this did not violate the
Fourth Amendment as we have rejected “any notion that a police
officer’s questioning, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose
of a routine traffic stop, is itself a Fourth Amendment
violation.” United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (5th
Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Shabazz, 993 F.2d at 436).
Accordingly, Torres’s conviction is AFFIRMED.