United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30283
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CR-50112
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Alberto Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of
possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues
that the district court erred when it denied his motion to
suppress, based on the alleged unlawful search of his vehicle by
the Louisiana state trooper who stopped him for a traffic
violation.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30283
-2-
Rodriguez does not contest the validity of the trooper’s
initial traffic stop. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500,
506-07 (5th Cir. 2004). The trooper who stopped Rodriguez
testified at a suppression hearing. A videotape of the traffic
stop and search of Rodriguez’s vehicle was also introduced by the
Government.
The facts that the trooper articulated included the following:
Rodriguez delayed before pulling his vehicle off of the roadway;
then after pulling onto the shoulder Rodriguez delayed before
stepping out of the car. Rodriguez acted nervous and evasive, he
was sweating, and he continually asserted that he wanted no
problems, which, in the officer’s experience, was an unusual
reaction to the traffic stop. Rodriguez’s behavior was so unusual
that the trooper felt that Rodriguez was a dangerous man, which
prompted him to call for assistance at the traffic stop. At times
Rodriguez appeared to understand the English language and at times
he acted as though he could not understand the trooper. The
trooper’s check showed Rodriguez had prior recent arrests,
including narcotics arrests.
After Rodriguez signed a Spanish language consent to search
form, the trooper found a hidden compartment that had been
installed in the vehicle’s undercarriage. Safety concerns, because
of heavy morning traffic, prompted the trooper to remove the
vehicle from the shoulder of the interstate and to take the vehicle
to the station so that the compartment could be examined. The
No. 05-30283
-3-
trooper’s continued detention of Rodriguez, which included
handcuffing Rodriguez, did not violate the Fourth Amendment because
the record shows that the investigative detention was necessary to
resolve the suspicion that arose during the traffic stop. See
Brigham, 382 F.3d at 509-10; see also United States v. Sanders, 994
F.2d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 1993) (handcuffing a suspect does not
automatically convert an investigatory detention into an arrest
requiring probable cause).
Finally, the record reflects that the district court did not
clearly err when it concluded that Rodriguez understood that he was
consenting to the search, and that Rodriguez’s consent was freely
and voluntary given. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 436
and n.21 (5th Cir. 2002).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.