United States v. Roque-Villanueva

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-40115

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee

VERSUS

MARIO ROQUE-VILLANUEVA,
Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
May 10, 1999

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:

Mario Roque-Villaneuva (“Defendant”) appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion to suppress. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Border Patrol Agent Nedia Correjo Gonzales (“Agent Gonzales”)

stopped a car driven by the Defendant. As a result of the stop,

federal authorities learned that the Defendant was a deported alien

who had illegally reentered the United States. The Defendant was

indicted for being a deported alien found in the United States in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arguing that Agent Gonzales stopped

him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the Defendant

moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop.

The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the

Defendant’s identity was not suppressible. The Defendant entered

a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial

of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced the

Defendant to a 51 month term of imprisonment, to run concurrently

with a 12 month sentence imposed in an earlier case. The Defendant

appeals.

DISCUSSION

The Defendant contends that the district court erred by

denying his motion to suppress because Agent Gonzales stopped him

without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. We disagree. The

district court did not err by refusing to suppress the Defendant’s

identity. Even if the Defendant was illegally stopped, neither

his identity nor his INS file are suppressible.

We have held that a defendant’s INS file need not be

suppressed because of an illegal arrest. In United States v.

Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1983), the defendant, an

illegal alien who had been previous deported, was charged with

illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §

1326. Maintaining that his arrest was illegal, the defendant moved

to suppress his INS file as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

2
Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d at 943. The district court denied the

defendant’s motion and he was convicted. We affirmed the denial of

the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that the defendant had

no legitimate expectation of privacy in his INS file and,

therefore, had no standing to challenge its introduction into

evidence. See id. at 944.

Other courts have indicated that an individual’s identity is

not suppressible. In I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 104 S.Ct. 3479

(1984), the respondent objected to being summoned to a civil

deportation proceeding following his unlawful arrest. See id. at

3484. Rejecting the respondent’s argument, the Supreme Court

stated that “[t]he ‘body’ or identity of a defendant or respondent

in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as

a fruit of an unlawful arrest.” Id. at 3483. In U.S. v. Guzman-

Bruno, 27 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 1994), an alien convicted of illegally

reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 argued

that the district court erred by refusing to suppress all evidence

of his identity learned from his unlawful arrest. Affirming the

conviction, the Ninth Circuit held that the “district court did not

err when it held that neither [the defendant’s] identity nor the

records of his previous convictions and deportations and

convictions could be suppressed as a result of the illegal arrest.”

Id. at 422.

CONCLUSION

3
We affirm the denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED

4