United States v. Pauyo ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 18, 2009
    No. 08-11218
    Summary Calendar              Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    CLARK PAUYO,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:08-CR-48-ALL
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Following a jury trial, Clark Pauyo was convicted of possession with intent
    to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Pauyo appeals the district court’s denial of his pretrial
    motion to suppress. He argues that his detention following the initially valid
    traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged and that his consent to the search
    of his tractor-trailer was not valid.
    *
    Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-11218
    We review findings of fact made by a district court on a motion to suppress
    for clear error and the district court’s ultimate conclusions on Fourth
    Amendment issues de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
    the prevailing party, in this case, the Government.         See United States v.
    Gonzalez, 
    328 F.3d 755
    , 758 (5th Cir. 2003). We evaluate the legality of a traffic
    stop and a subsequent search under the familiar test of Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
     (1968). United States v. Brigham, 
    382 F.3d 500
    , 506 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
    Pauyo contends that Trooper Lancaster’s actions were not reasonably
    related in scope to the traffic stop, that his suspicions were not reasonable, and
    that after the decision was made to issue a warning, the continued detention was
    unreasonable. Contrary to Pauyo’s assertion, Trooper Lancaster’s request for
    documentation and questioning concerning the purpose and itinerary of Pauyo’s
    trip were within the scope of his investigation and did not extend the duration
    of the stop. See Brigham, 
    382 F.3d at 508-11
    . Moreover, based on the officer’s
    experience with commercial vehicles, the information he obtained from Pauyo’s
    log book and the bills of lading, and Pauyo’s demeanor and reluctance to answer
    routine questions, Trooper Lancaster had a reasonable and objective suspicion
    that Pauyo was engaged in illegal activity. Trooper Lancaster’s actions were
    justified as a graduated response to emerging facts, were reasonable under the
    totality of the circumstances, and did not unconstitutionally extend Pauyo’s
    detention. See 
    id. at 506-09
    .
    With regard to Pauyo’s consent to the search of the tractor-trailer, we
    review the district court’s finding that his consent was voluntary for clear error.
    See United States v. Solis, 
    299 F.3d 420
    , 436 (5th Cir. 2002). The voluntariness
    inquiry turns on the evaluation of six factors. United States v. Shabazz, 
    993 F.2d 431
    , 438 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court found that (1) an absence of
    coercive police tactics, (2) Pauyo’s intelligence, experience, and ability to speak
    and understand English, and (3) Pauyo’s belief that no incriminating evidence
    2
    No. 08-11218
    would be found weighed in favor of a finding that he voluntarily gave his consent
    to the search. Because no single factor is dispositive and because there were
    sufficient facts that together support the voluntariness of Pauyo’s consent, there
    is no clear error. See Solis, 
    299 F.3d at
    436 & n.21.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-11218

Judges: Reavley, Davis, Haynes

Filed Date: 8/18/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024