United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 28, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40458
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL ANGEL FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-406-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Angel Flores appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle during a
traffic stop. He argues that the state trooper, Jorge Lopez,
detained him for an unreasonable amount of time in violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights after the trooper checked his Mexican
driver’s license, his American insurance policy, and his temporary
Mexican permit displayed in the rear windshield of his vehicle.
Flores has not shown that the district court erred in denying his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle. The
documents provided by Flores were not sufficient to establish
Flores’s ownership of the vehicle. It was not reasonable to expect
that Lopez would know the legal significance of the temporary
Mexican permit. Lopez’s request for documentation and questioning
concerning Flores’s travel plans were within the scope of his
investigation and did not extend the duration of the stop
unreasonably. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508-11
(5th Cir. 2004).
Further, Flores’s answers to Lopez’s questions raised
additional suspicions as Flores stated he had a business of
distributing blenders, but he was driving to San Antonio to
purchase used cars for resale in Mexico. Flores stated a friend
had found used cars for him to purchase, but later stated that he
did not know the makes and models of the cars. Flores stated that
he was going to stay with a friend who lived off of Military Road,
that he had never been there, but that he would be able to find it
without explanation. Flores stated that he had spoken to his
friend a few days earlier, but later stated that his friend did not
have a telephone. Flores’s answers and his apparent nervousness
caused Lopez to become suspicious. The duration of the stop was
not unreasonable as only six minutes elapsed from the time of the
initial stop to the time that Lopez obtained consent to search the
vehicle. After Lopez examined the manifold of the truck and found
numerous pry marks, he had probable cause to believe that the
2
manifold contained contraband and, therefore, he had probable cause
to ask Flores to follow him to the Falfurrias checkpoint for a more
thorough search.
Because Lopez’s questions were within the scope of his
investigation and did not extend the duration of the detention
unreasonably under the totality of the circumstances, the district
court did not err in denying Flores’s motion to suppress the
evidence. See Brigham, 382 F.3d at 506-07.
AFFIRMED.
3