eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 1999-09

United States v. Wallace ( 1999 )


Menu:
 
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51063
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROSS H. WALLACE, II,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-97-CR-225-2
--------------------
August 26, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ross H. Wallace, II, entered a conditional guilty plea to
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.       He contends
on direct appeal that the district court erred in refusing to
suppress evidence found by, and statements made to, the police
during a search of the car Wallace was driving.
In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress, the district court’s findings of fact are accepted
unless clearly erroneous, but its ultimate conclusion as to the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-51063
-2-
constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed de
novo.   United States v. Chavez-Villarreal,
    3 F.3d 124
    , 126 (5th
Cir. 1993).   This court must review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party, and the district court’s
ruling to deny the suppression motion should be upheld if there
is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it.     United
States v. Tellez,
    11 F.3d 530
    , 532 (5th Cir. 1993).
The district court’s findings regarding whether the Border
Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop Wallace’s car was
not clearly erroneous.   “Reasonable suspicion” may be based on
information supplied by a confidential informant if the
information possesses “indicia of reliability.”   Adams v.
Williams,
    407 U.S. 143
    , 147 (1972); United States v. Roch,
    5 F.3d 894
    , 898 (5th Cir. 1993).   Evidence at the suppression hearing
revealed that the confidential informant was known to the Border
Patrol agent receiving the information and was considered highly
reliable, having given information in the past leading to several
arrests.   The original lookout provided information that two cars
may be involved.   When the arresting officer called in a license
plate check on the second car, he learned that the informant had
just called in with information on that car.   The totality of the
circumstances supports a finding that the arresting officer had
reasonable suspicion to stop Wallace’s car.
Wallace also alleges that he did not properly waive the
rights provided in Miranda v. Arizona,
    384 U.S. 436
     (1966).      This
issue was not raised in the district court and is reviewed only
for plain error.   See United States v. Calverley,
    37 F.3d 160
    ,
No. 98-51063
-3-
162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).   The testimony presented at the
suppression hearing shows that Wallace made a statement after
being read his rights at least twice, and Wallace did not state
that the statement was made unwillingly or that he did not
understand his rights.   Wallace has not shown plain error in the
district court’s finding that the confession was admissible.    The
decision of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.