United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 9, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41125
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ROLANDO RAMOS
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-2114-1
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rolando Ramos was convicted by a jury of two counts of
transporting undocumented aliens within the United States for
financial gain by means of a motor vehicle, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1324, and was sentenced to 37 months in prison. Ramos
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress,
arguing that the arresting agent did not have probable cause or a
warrant to arrest him.
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error and the district court’s ultimate conclusion as to the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41125
-2-
constitutionality of the law enforcement action de novo. United
States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 456 (5th Cir. 2001). We consider
all of the the evidence taken at trial, not just that presented
before the ruling on the suppression motion, in the light most
favorable to the Government. See id.; United States v. Rideau,
969 F.2d 1572, 1576 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
“The Constitution does not require that a warrant issue
prior to an arrest based on probable cause, even if no exigent
circumstances prevented the obtainment of a warrant.” United
States v. Avila-Dominguez, 610 F.2d 1266, 1270-71 (5th Cir.
1980). The question is whether the United States Border Patrol
agents had probable cause at the time Ramos was arrested. See
id. at 1271. Under the collective knowledge doctrine, we look to
whether the ‘laminated total’ of the information known by the
agents who were in communication with one another amounted to
probable cause. See United States v. Kye Soo Lee, 962 F.2d 430,
435-36 (5th Cir. 1992).
The testimony at trial shows that the facts and
circumstances within the collective knowledge of the Border
Patrol agents at the time of the arrest were sufficient for a
reasonable person to conclude that Ramos had committed the
offense of illegally transporting aliens. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii); United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512
(5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the agents had probable cause for
No. 05-41125
-3-
the warrantless arrest, and the district court did not err in
denying the motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.