CA5: Two day warrantless search of tractor-trailer with PC was reasonable

There was probable cause for the stop and search of defendant’s tractor-trailer. The fact contraband wasn’t found in the first three hours didn’t cause the PC to dissipate. The truck was moved and searched for two days. Given there was probable cause, the two day search of the truck was reasonable. United States v. Hernandez, 518 Fed. Appx. 270 (5th Cir. 2013):

Hernandez provided written consent for the officers to search the tractor-trailer and does not dispute that the officers had probable cause to conduct the initial search. Officers used a canine unit during the search, and a dog alerted to the outside driver’s side and inside the cab of the tractor-trailer. At the suppression hearing, Case Agent Ellen Thompson, a detective with the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and a sworn task force officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration, explained that the tractor-trailer was moved to another location so that it could be x-rayed and searched by someone more qualified in finding hidden compartments in tractor-trailers. This decision by the officers was not unreasonable given the fact that narcotics transported in tractor-trailers are often hidden in secret compartments. See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 167-68 (5th Cir. 1999). Further, the fact that it took two days for the officers to conduct the more thorough search does not make the warrantless search of the truck less justified. See United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 486-87 (1985); United States v. Moody, 564 F.3d 754, 761 (5th Cir. 2009). While police may not “disregard facts tending to dissipate probable cause,” Bigford v. Taylor, 834 F.2d 1213, 1218 (5th Cir. 1988), Hernandez does not cite case law suggesting that an unsuccessful three- to four-hour search would itself dissipate existing probable cause. Cf. United States v. Bowling, 900 F.2d 926, 934 (6th Cir. 1990) (whether an initial unsuccessful consent search dissipates probable cause depends on the scope and intricacy compared to the subsequent search). Further, we have held that a warrant is not required to seize a vehicle on a public street when “the police have probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of crime.” United States v. Cooper, 949 F.2d 737, 747 (5th Cir. 1991). Here, there is sufficient evidence, including the wiretap investigation, Hernandez and his passenger’s answers to police questions, and the two dog alerts, to find that the officers had probable cause to believe that the tractor-trailer contained contraband.

Back to blog

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.