United States v. Garcia ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11410
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-114-1-Y
September 11, 2000
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Miguel Garcia appeals the district court’s denial of his
motions to suppress evidence and his motion to exclude expert
testimony. Garcia entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the
right to appeal the district court’s denial of these motions.
Garcia argues that law enforcement officials did not have
sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
the vehicle in which Garcia was a passenger; he also argues that
the length of the detention was unreasonable and became a full-
blown arrest without probable cause. A review of the evidence
presented indicates that the officers had reasonable suspicion to
stop the vehicle based on the tip from a previously reliable
informant and based on the officers’ surveillance which
corroborated the confidential informant’s tip. The approximately
forty-five minute detention of the vehicle was not unreasonable as
the officers “diligently pursued a means of investigation that was
likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which
time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v.
Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). The alert by the narcotics dog
then provided probable cause to search the vehicle. See United
States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1995).
Garcia argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to exclude Sergeant H.G. Tebay’s testimony as
unqualified under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. He
also argues that Sergeant Tebay’s testimony would have violated
Rule 704 which prohibits an expert from testifying concerning a
defendant’s mental state. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Garcia’s motion to exclude Sergeant Tebay’s
testimony because he was an experienced narcotics investigator who
had knowledge concerning how the drug distribution business
operates which would have assisted the jury. See United States v.
2
Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, such
testimony would not have violated Rule 704 as the testimony could
be considered an analysis of the evidence. See United States v.
Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 609-10 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
3