United States v. Cedillo ( 2021 )

Case: 20-11094 Document: 00515974296 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 11, 2021
No. 20-11094 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Andrew Cedillo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:20-CR-3-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Andrew Cedillo entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with
the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii), reserving the right to appeal the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. He was
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-11094 Document: 00515974296 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-11094
sentenced to 160 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of
supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the traffic stop was not
supported by reasonable suspicion and that the good-faith exception may not
be used to justify a pretextual traffic stop conducted without probable cause
or reasonable suspicion.
We decline to decide whether Cedillo preserved his arguments by
sufficiently raising a challenge in the district court to the good-faith exception
when based on an error in the law and involving a pretextual stop, see United
States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 448 (5th Cir. 2010), because his arguments
lack merit under any standard of review, see United States v. Fernandez, 559
F.3d 303, 330 (5th Cir. 2009).
The constitutionality of a traffic stop is examined under the two-
pronged analysis described in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). United States
v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 349–50 (5th Cir. 2010), modified on other grounds on
denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). First, we determine whether the
stop was justified at its inception. Pack, 612 F.3d at 350. “For a traffic stop
to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an objectively reasonable
suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as a traffic violation,
occurred, or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.” United States v.
Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430 (5th Cir. 2005). Reasonable suspicion can
rest on a mistaken understanding of the law if the mistake is objectively
reasonable. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60, 66 (2014).
The officer who stopped Cedillo testified that he observed Cedillo’s
vehicle fail to maintain a single lane of travel multiple times, in violation of
Texas Transportation Code § 545.060(a). We view this evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government and conclude that the officer’s action in
stopping Cedillo was justified at its inception because he had reasonable
suspicion that Cedillo violated § 545.060(a), and, even if he erred in
2
Case: 20-11094 Document: 00515974296 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-11094
determining that he had a legal basis to stop Cedillo’s vehicle, his mistake of
law was objectively reasonable. See Heien, 574 U.S. at 68; Pack, 612 F.3d at
347; see also Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552, 556–61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
(plurality op.). Despite Cedillo’s arguments to the contrary, it is well-settled
that a traffic stop, even if pretextual, does not violate the Fourth Amendment
if the officer making the stop has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806, 810–12 (1996).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3