Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Inez Luz Balderas, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 597 F.2d 67
June 15, 1979
L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
J. A. Canales, U. S. Atty., John M. Potter, James R. Gough, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., Robert Berg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Corpus Christi, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was stopped at the Sarita, Texas, permanent checkpoint, which is the functional equivalent of the border. United States v. Reyna, 572 F.2d 515 (CA5, 1978); United States v. Olivera, 582 F.2d 24 (CA5, 1978); United States v. Clay, 581 F.2d 1190 (CA5, 1978); United States v. Moreno, 579 F.2d 371 (CA5, 1978); United States v. Torres, 590 F.2d 156 (CA5, 1979). Although neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion was required, the Border Patrol agent smelled marijuana coming from appellant's truck while questioning appellant about his citizenship. Thereafter appellant's pickup was searched and a load of marijuana discovered.
There is no merit to the argument that the Border Patrol agent was deprived of power to carry out his function because, before he approached appellant's vehicle, a state trooper at the checkpoint had checked appellant's driver's license and inquired about car ownership papers.
AFFIRMED.