United States v. Chairez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10856 Document: 00516789010 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10856
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 15, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Roberto Chairez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-495-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Roberto Chairez was convicted, at a jury trial, of attempted possession
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. He argues that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained
during the traffic stop that led to his arrest because the officer’s questioning,
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10856 Document: 00516789010 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-10856
request for consent to search his car, and prolonged detention tainted his
consent.
On appeal from a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we
review factual findings for clear error and the legality of police conduct de
novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party,
here, the Government. See United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.
2010), modified on other grounds on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.
2010). “Factual findings are clearly erroneous only if a review of the record
leaves [us] with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95, 101 (5th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether the record
demonstrates reasonable suspicion is a question of law that we review de
novo. See United States v. Jaquez, 421 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2005).
The record shows that, after communicating with the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the police officer had reasonable suspicion to
suspect Chairez was part of a drug trafficking scheme. In light of the officer’s
reasonable suspicion that Chairez was involved in criminal activity, he fails
to demonstrate that the officer unduly prolonged his traffic stop. See
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355 (2015); United States v. Reyes,
963 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2020); Pack, 612 F.3d at 350-51; United States v.
Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Likewise, the
officer’s request for consent was reasonably related to dispelling reasonable
suspicion developed before or during the stop, and there was no Fourth
Amendment violation that tainted the consent to search the vehicle. See
Brigham, 382 F.3d at 508-09; United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th
Cir. 1993)
AFFIRMED.
2