Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 26, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Clerk

No. 02-50255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL PRESTON PERKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JONES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
Paul Preston Perkins was convicted on his guilty plea and sentenced for possession
with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. His plea was conditioned on
the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana
obtained after the stop of his vehicle by Border Patrol agents.
The Border Patrol agents were patrolling a road closely parallel to the Mexican
border, a road alien smugglers frequently use, when told to be on the lookout for an RV

loaded with drugs. That morning, the Border Patrol had received information from a
confidential informant that a vehicle was being loaded with drugs and would depart from
Redford, Texas, that morning. The agent had received accurate information from the
informer in the past and he was considered to be reliable.
The agents on patrol encountered an RV coming from the direction of Redford,
stopped it, were given consent to search by the defendant, and found the marijuana in
sugar sacks on the floor of the RV.
A. Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
In order to conduct an investigatory stop, law enforcement must possess some
objective evidence that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal
activity. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357
(1979). Based on the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement must have a
particularized and objective reason for suspecting criminal activity has been or is about to
be committed by the individual stopped. Id. at 51, 99 S.Ct. at 2640.
Anonymous tips may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an
investigatory stop. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 327-29, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2415,
110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). A "Be on the Look Out" (BOLO) report informed by
anonymous tips may also provide reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Hensley, 469
U.S. 221, 231-33, 105 S.Ct. 675, 682, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). In assessing whether an
anonymous tip informing a BOLO report creates a sufficient basis for an investigatory
stop, the court should assess several factors including: (1) the credibility and reliability of
2

the informant; (2) the specificity of the information contained in the tip or BOLO report;
(3) the ability of officers in the field to verify the information in the field; and (4) whether
the tip deals with active or recent activity. See Alabama, 496 U.S. at 328-32, 110 S.Ct. at
2415-17.
Here, the informant providing the tip was known to be reliable and credible. He
had proven his reliability in the past. His prediction of the time of the RV's departure
from Redford matched the arrival at the location of the patrolling agents, confirming the
accuracy of the information. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146
L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). This evidence supports the district court's finding of reasonable
suspicion.
B. The Authority of Border Patrol Agents
This court has held that Border Patrol agents may make roving stops on the basis
of reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity, and are not limited to suspicion of
violation of immigration laws. See United States v. Ceniceros, 204 F.3d 581, 584 (5th
Cir. 2000); United States v. Castenada, 951 F.2d 44, 46-47 (5th Cir. 1992). In United
States v. Cortez, the Supreme Court concluded:
We have recently held that stops by the Border Patrol may be justified under
circumstances less than those constituting probable cause for arrest or search.
Thus, the test is not whether Officers Gray and Evans had probable cause to
conclude that the vehicle they stopped would contain "Chevron" and a group of
illegal aliens. Rather the question is whether, based upon the whole picture, they,
as experienced Border Patrol officers, could reasonably surmise that the particular
vehicle they stopped was engaged in criminal activity. On this record they could
so conclude.
3