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.
General
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Rodriguez SANTIBANEZ, Defendant-Appellant
517 F.2d 922·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, 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. Jose Rodriguez SANTIBANEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 74-3382
Summary Calendar.*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 1975.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 23, 1975.
L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
Santibanez was stopped for an immigration check at the La Gloria checkpoint. While interrogating Santibanez concerning his citizenship the immigration officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the vehicle. His assistant thereupon opened the rear door of the station wagon and found 240 pounds of marijuana. Santibanez moved to suppress this evidence. The motion was denied. Santibanez was found guilty of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. He appeals, contending that the search and seizure were illegal. We affirm.
We find no constitutional dereliction in stopping vehicles at this permanent checkpoint for the purpose of determining the occupant’s citizenship. Such a stop is considerably less intrusive than a search, Terry v. Ohio, 1968, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. Cf. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623, 43 L.W. 5026 (June 30, 1975).
The odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle’s interior gave the immigration officer probable cause to then conduct the search. The motion to suppress the evidence was thus properly denied.
Affirmed.
. The question here presented was expressly reserved by the Supreme Court in Ortiz.