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
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 98-40115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
VERSUS
MARIO ROQUE-VILLANUEVA,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
May 10, 1999
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:
Mario Roque-Villaneuva ("Defendant") appeals the district
court's denial of his motion to suppress. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Border Patrol Agent Nedia Correjo Gonzales ("Agent Gonzales")
stopped a car driven by the Defendant. As a result of the stop,
federal authorities learned that the Defendant was a deported alien
who had illegally reentered the United States. The Defendant was
indicted for being a deported alien found in the United States in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arguing that Agent Gonzales stopped
him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the Defendant
moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop.
The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the
Defendant's identity was not suppressible. The Defendant entered
a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial
of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced the
Defendant to a 51 month term of imprisonment, to run concurrently
with a 12 month sentence imposed in an earlier case. The Defendant
appeals.
DISCUSSION
The Defendant contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress because Agent Gonzales stopped him
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. We disagree. The
district court did not err by refusing to suppress the Defendant's
identity. Even if the Defendant was illegally stopped, neither
his identity nor his INS file are suppressible.
We have held that a defendant's INS file need not be
suppressed because of an illegal arrest. In United States v.
Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1983), the defendant, an
illegal alien who had been previous deported, was charged with
illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1326. Maintaining that his arrest was illegal, the defendant moved
to suppress his INS file as the "fruit of the poisonous tree."
2

Pineda-Chinchilla, 712 F.2d at 943. The district court denied the
defendant's motion and he was convicted. We affirmed the denial of
the defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the defendant had
no legitimate expectation of privacy in his INS file and,
therefore, had no standing to challenge its introduction into
evidence. See id. at 944.
Other courts have indicated that an individual's identity is
not suppressible. In I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 104 S.Ct. 3479
(1984), the respondent objected to being summoned to a civil
deportation proceeding following his unlawful arrest. See id. at
3484. Rejecting the respondent's argument, the Supreme Court
stated that "[t]he `body' or identity of a defendant or respondent
in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as
a fruit of an unlawful arrest." Id. at 3483. In U.S. v. Guzman-
Bruno, 27 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 1994), an alien convicted of illegally
reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 argued
that the district court erred by refusing to suppress all evidence
of his identity learned from his unlawful arrest. Affirming the
conviction, the Ninth Circuit held that the "district court did not
err when it held that neither [the defendant's] identity nor the
records of his previous convictions and deportations and
convictions could be suppressed as a result of the illegal arrest."
Id. at 422.
CONCLUSION
3