United States v. Murphy Thomas ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50518 Document: 00516710850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50518
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ April 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Clim Eugene Murphy Thomas,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-577-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Clim Murphy Thomas appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the
evidence underlying his convictions of aiding and abetting possession with
intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marihuana and possession of a
firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. He maintains that the initial
encounter with Border Patrol agents was nonconsensual and violated his
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50518 Document: 00516710850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2023
No. 22-50518
Fourth Amendment rights.
When considering a motion to suppress, this court reviews “the dis-
trict court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including
its ultimate conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law enforcement
action, de novo.” United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002).
Whether a person has been seized or detained and Fourth Amendment pro-
tections are triggered is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Mask, 330 F.3d 330, 334–35 (5th Cir. 2003).
If, as in this case, a defendant claims he has been seized in the absence
of physical force, this court “analyze[s] the encounter in two steps: whether
the officer exerted a sufficient show of authority; and whether defendant sub-
mitted to it.” United States v. Wright, 57 F.4th 524, 531 (5th Cir. 2023). In
analyzing whether an officer has made “a sufficient show of authority,” a
reviewing court “considers whether, in the light of ‘all of the circumstances
surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he
was not free to leave.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S.
544, 554 (1980)). A consensual encounter where an individual voluntarily
agrees to speak with the officers “does not amount to a ‘seizure’ under the
Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 145 (5th Cir.
1995).
The Border Patrol agents approached in a single vehicle rather than
both vehicles. Upon seeing the agents, Murphy Thomas got up from where
he was seated and approached them, offering his driver’s license un-
prompted. Murphy Thomas and his codefendant interacted with the agents
and moved about freely during the encounter. Moreover, before observing
the illegal narcotics in plain view, the agents did not make any demands of
Murphy Thomas. To the contrary, Murphy Thomas voluntarily approached
one of the agents and answered his questions.
2
Case: 22-50518 Document: 00516710850 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/13/2023
No. 22-50518
Murphy Thomas places much emphasis on his race. Although not
irrelevant, that factor is not decisive. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 558. That
the agents were armed and in uniform has little weight, and neither bran-
dished his weapon. See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 204–05
(2002).
Totality of the circumstances supports the conclusion that there was
no seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Wright, 57 F.4th
at 531. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
3