USA v. Rodriguez
Filing
920060208
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50275 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIO ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-623-1 -------------------Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mario Alberto Rodriguez appeals his conditional guilty plea conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. Because the
officer had probable cause to believe a traffic violation was occurring, the initial stop of Rodriguez's vehicle was reasonable. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996). Because the
officer had not finished writing out the warning when he questioned
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
Rodriguez and requested consent to search the vehicle, Rodriguez was not improperly detained beyond the scope of the initial stop. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983). The questions
asked of Rodriguez were permissible. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc). Rodriguez has not established that the district court's See
finding that his consent was voluntary was clearly erroneous.
United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 201 (5th Cir. 1999). Because Rodriguez was subject to a traffic stop, the officer was not required to provide him with the warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), before questioning Rodriguez and asking for consent to search the vehicle. 468 U.S. 420, 438-40 (1984). See Berkemer v. McCarty,
Rodriguez's assertion that the
district court improperly revived the "silver platter" doctrine is misplaced. (1960). Cf. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 212-13
Likewise, his assertion that the district court should
have applied Texas law to determine whether consent to search was validly given is improper. See id. at 224. Because Rodriguez has
not established that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?