United States v. Rodriguez

                    United States Court of Appeals,

                             Eleventh Circuit.

                                 No. 94-4768.

           UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                       v.

             Jaime Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

                                 Feb. 14, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. (No. 93-490CR-FAM), Federico A. Moreno, Judge.

Before EDMONDSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and CUDAHY*, Senior
Circuit Judge.

     PER CURIAM:

     This case involves a traveler who was suspected of smuggling

drugs in his alimentary canal, that is, an internal drug carrier.

The traveler was detained for about ninety minutes by customs

agents as he entered the country.           While he was detained, heroin

was discovered as a result of a bowel movement;1          but the district
                                                                     2
court    ordered   that    the   heroin pellets be suppressed.           The

government     appealed.         We   reverse   and   remand   for   further

proceedings.

     That customs agents had—from the circumstances, including the

traveler's inconsistent statements—reasonable suspicion that the

     *
      Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for
the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
     1
      Seventy-five heroin pellets were passed over the next
thirty hours.
     2
      Rodriguez sought to suppress both the pellets and some
post-arrest statements made to custom officials. The district
court granted Rodriguez's motion on the pellets but denied the
motion on the statements. The denial of the motion to suppress
the statements is not before us.
traveler was a drug smuggler is not contested.             The question

presented involves the significance of a clean bowel movement the

traveler had soon after he was detained.      The first heroin pellet

was excreted in a later bowel movement.              The district court

concluded that the first bowel movement destroyed the previously

existing reasonable suspicion.    We disagree.

      Once reasonable suspicion exists that a person entering the

country is an internal drug smuggler, the government may detain the

traveler until enough time has passed to allow the contents of the

suspected smuggler's stomach to be excreted.     See United States v.

Henao-Castano,   729   F.2d   1364,   1366   (11th    Cir.1984).     The

traveler-suspect often has some control over the length of his

detention;   for example, he could choose the usually speedier

alternative of an x-ray examination.

      We accept that there may be limits on how long police can

detain a suspected internal carrier (or how many bowel movements

can be required);   these limits, however, have not been approached

in this case where the international traveler was held only ninety

minutes and when only two bowel movements were involved.              Cf.

United States v. Mosquera-Ramirez, 729 F.2d 1352, 1355 (11th

Cir.1984) (approving twelve hour detention of suspected swallower

who refused x-ray examination); United States v. Onumonu, 967 F.2d

782, 784-85 (2d Cir.1992) (approving six day detention);           United

States v. Odofin, 929 F.2d 56, 58 (2d Cir.1991) (approving 24 day

detention of suspected swallower);      United States v. Yakubu, 936

F.2d 936, 937 (7th Cir.1991) (approving 20 hour detention).

     REVERSED and REMANDED.