United States v. Garza ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50178 Document: 00515712324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-50178 January 20, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Gilbert Garza, Jr., also known as Gilbert Garza,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-166-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gilbert Garza, Jr., was convicted of possession of 50 grams or more of
actual methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He appeals,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50178 Document: 00515712324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2021
No. 20-50178
challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence
discovered after a vehicle stop based on a traffic violation and a warrantless
vehicle search. Garza argues that the officer who stopped him unlawfully
extended the vehicle stop and detention without justification. Further, he
argues that the drug-sniffing dog search, body search, and warrantless vehicle
search were unlawful because the officers did not obtain additional
reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking during the vehicle stop. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we review factual
findings for clear error and the legality of police conduct de novo. United
States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), opinion modified on denial of reh’g,
622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010).
Garza does not contest that the vehicle stop was justified at its
inception, but he argues that “the search or seizure was [not] reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first place,”
i.e., the traffic violation. United States v. Grant, 349 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir.
2003); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, several detectives set
up a controlled drug buy using a cooperating source and observed Garza’s
vehicle arriving at and leaving the location. Shortly after, one of the
detectives received confirmation that the source had purchased heroin from
Garza. The detectives instructed a police officer, who was aware of and
involved in the drug trafficking investigation, to stop Garza for a traffic
violation. Thus, pursuant to the collective knowledge doctrine, the officer
had probable cause to continue to detain Garza for drug trafficking. See
United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v.
Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2007).
As to the vehicle search, the “automobile exception” to the Fourth
Amendment allows police with probable cause to believe a vehicle holds
contraband to search the vehicle without a warrant. See United States v.
Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 523 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “[i]f probable cause
2
Case: 20-50178 Document: 00515712324 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2021
No. 20-50178
justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every
part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 570 (1991) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted; brackets in original). Given the officer’s knowledge of the
controlled buy with the cooperating source, as well as the discovery of
methamphetamine paraphernalia on Garza’s person during a consensual
search, the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle pursuant to the
automobile exception. See Fields, 456 F.3d at 523.
Because the district court did not err by denying the motion to
suppress, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3