United States v. Ibarra-Loya ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50174
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN EDUARDO IBARRA-LOYA, also known as Juan Eduardo Loya-Ibarra,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:03-CR-750-1
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Eduardo Ibarra-Loya (Ibarra) pleaded guilty to possession
with intent to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 15 months
of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In pleading
guilty, Ibarra reserved his right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress. When reviewing the denial of a
motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
1
de novo. United States v. Hunt, 253 F.3d 227, 229-30 (5th Cir.
2001).
The Fourth Amendment does not protect people from all searches
and seizures, but it does protect them from unreasonable searches
and seizures. See United States v. Jones, 133 F.3d 358, 361 (5th
Cir. 1998). At an immigration checkpoint, such as in this case,
any vehicle may be stopped even in the absence of any
individualized suspicion of illegal activity so that the Border
Patrol Agent may determine the citizenship status of the people
passing through the checkpoint. United States v. Garcia-Garcia,
319 F.3d 726, 729 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v.
Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425, 431 (5th Cir. 2001). “The
permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop is therefore
the time reasonably necessary to determine the citizenship status
of the persons stopped.” Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d at 433.
Agent Martinez stated that Ibarra’s immigration inspection
took less than a minute. Thus, the district court’s finding that
Ibarra’s immigration inspection at the primary inspection area was
brief and did not unconstitutionally extend beyond its permissible
duration was not clearly erroneous. See id. at 431-35. Because
there is no Fourth Amendment violation, Ibarra’s claim that, even
if he did voluntarily consent to the search of his vehicle, his
consent did not dissipate the taint of the Fourth Amendment
violation fails.
2
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3