United States v. Padilla ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11411
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN JOSÉ PADILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-114-2-Y
September 7, 2000
Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Juan José Padilla appeals his conviction following a
conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute
cocaine. Padilla argues that the district court erred when it
denied his motion to suppress cocaine seized from his car after a
traffic stop. The testimony at the evidentiary hearing indicates
that the information available to the officers gave them reasonable
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
suspicion to think that Padilla was dealing cocaine. Thus, the
officers had reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop under
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968), thereby detaining Padilla
until that suspicion could be confirmed or refuted. United States
v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1993).
Padilla contends that the length of time–approximately forty-
five minutes–between the initial stop and the arrival of the dog
transformed the Terry stop into a full-blown arrest without
probable cause. Padilla’s detention lasted no longer than
necessary to effect the purpose of the stop–to identify the package
Garcia had left with from the Schwartz house. United States v.
Sharpe, 105 S. Ct. 1568 (1985); United States v. Zukas, 843 F.2d
179, 182 (5th Cir. 1988). Once the dog alerted to the car, the
officers had probably cause to arrest Padilla. See United States
v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1995).
Padilla argues that the district court should not have
admitted as expert testimony the testimony of Officer Tebay, one of
the officers who participated in his surveillance. Padilla did not
specify this as an issue for appeal in his conditional guilty plea.
The issue is, therefore, waived. United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d
184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2