Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Federico MADRID, Defendant-Appellant (two cases), 1975 — 517 F.2d 937 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Federico MADRID, Defendant-Appellant (two cases)
517 F.2d 937·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and MURRAH and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Federico MADRID, Defendant-Appellant (two cases).
Nos. 74-1851, 74-2296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 1975.
Robert E. Kennedy, El Paso, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Ron Ederer, William B. Hardie, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion dated March 28, 1975, 510 F.2d 554)
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and MURRAH and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered causes be and the same is hereby granted for the sole purpose of remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the lawfulness of the stop and search of Madrid’s vehicle. On remand, the district court should consider the case in the light of United States v. Ortiz, 1975 [43 L.W. 5026, June 24, 1975]; - U.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623, United States v. Buignoni-Ponce, 1975 [43 L.W. 5028, June 24, 1975], - U.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607, and any other relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court or this Court relating to checkpoint stops or border searches of vehicles.
Reversed and remanded.