CA5: Brignoni-Ponce roving border patrol stops do not violate equal protection

Brignoni-Ponce on roving border patrols applies virtually “anywhere” near the border. Applying Brignoni-Ponce does not violate equal protection even if ethnicity is a basis for the stop near the Mexican border. Here, RS developed for the stop when the Border Patrol officer pulled on to the highway to follow, four of the six passengers in the vehicle had apparently ducked down to hide, and that supported the stop. United States v. Hernandez-Moya, 353 Fed. Appx. 930 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).

Defendant’s traffic stop was not unreasonably extended because reasonable suspicion had developed. The driver’s story was suspect in itself, but the passenger’s story and actions made reasonable suspicion, so the request for consent came within a reasonable time. United States v. Pena-Ponce, 588 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2009).*

Because defendant storing his duffle bag at a friend’s apartment told the friend what was in it and permitted access, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag. This distinguishes United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2005), involving suitcases left with a friend where that defendant did retain a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Grantham, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110372 (W.D. Ky. November 25, 2009).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.