United States v. Haines ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41213
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MONTE HANHOKYU HAINES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-01-CR-275-1)
--------------------
October 2, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Monte Hanhokyu Haines appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana discovered
in his vehicle by border patrol agents at the Agua Nueva permanent
checkpoint. He argues that (1) the agents lacked reasonable
suspicion to detain him beyond the time necessary to check his
immigration status, and (2) he did not voluntarily consent to the
search of his tractor-trailer, the vehicle in which the agents
discovered the marijuana.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review
the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and we
review de novo the court’s legal conclusions, such as whether
reasonable suspicion existed. United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d
716, 721 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, “[t]he evidence presented at a
pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress is viewed in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party.” Id. We consider the
totality of the circumstances in determining whether reasonable
suspicion existed at the time of the detention or search. United
States v. Smith, 273 F.3d 629, 634 (5th Cir. 2001).
The district court identified several factors that support the
agents’ contention that they had a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity. Even if, as Haines asserts, each factor, taken alone,
could be consistent with innocent behavior, the relevant inquiry is
whether the “totality of the circumstances” created a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity. See Smith, 273 F.3d at 634-35.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, as the
prevailing party, the totality of the circumstances supports the
district court’s conclusion that the agents had a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity, justifying their continued
detention of Haines. See id. The district court did not err in
denying Haines’ motion to suppress on this basis.
We review the question whether Haines voluntarily and clearly
consented to the search of his vehicle under the clearly erroneous
standard, which “is particularly strong since the [district court]
2
had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses” at
the suppression hearing. United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413,
421 (5th Cir. 1996)(internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Although Haines was not in the custody of the agents and
the agents did not inform Haines of his right to deny consent, (1)
they did not use any coercive measures to obtain his consent to
search the trailer; (2) he appeared cooperative; and (3) he was an
experienced truck driver who had been through checkpoints
innumerable times. See United States v. Olivier-Becerril, 861 F.2d
424, 426 (5th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the government, the testimony of the agents and
Haines supports the district court’s finding that Haines
voluntarily and clearly consented. The district court did not err
in denying Haines’s motion to suppress based on the finding of
clear and voluntary consent.
As Haines concedes, his challenge to the constitutionality of
permanent checkpoints is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-
Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), which we are bound to follow. See
United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001).
The district court’s judgment is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3