United States v. Hernandez ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 4, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50452
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROLANDO HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:05-CR-117-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rolando Hernandez appeals from his conviction of possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He contends that the
district court erred by denying his motion to suppress his
confession and other evidence. Hernandez asserts that all of the
evidence found in his vehicle and his statement should be
suppressed because he was not given his Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966), warnings upon being referred to the secondary
inspection area at the immigration checkpoint at which he was
stopped. He argues that being referred to secondary inspection
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50452
-2-
when agents have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is,
by its very nature, tantamount to being placed under arrest.
Moreover, Hernandez suggests that the process of being referred
to secondary inspection is inherently coercive and renders any
consent involuntary.
Referral to secondary inspection at a border checkpoint does
not constitute an arrest requiring Miranda warnings. United
States v. Garcia, 616 F.2d 210, 211 (5th Cir. 1980); United
States v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 495, 497-98 (5th Cir. 1979); see
United States v. Kiam, 432 F.3d 524, 530 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1453 (2006). Moreover, the evidence indicates that
the consent to search was obtained either during, or immediately
after, routine checkpoint procedures. The stop therefore was not
impermissibly extended beyond the scope of an immigration stop.
United States v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425, 435 (5th Cir.
2001). Once Hernandez gave his consent, the agents needed no
further justification to prolong the encounter. See id. The
district court did not err by denying Hernandez’s motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.