United States v. Gonzalez
111 F. App'x 769
November 4, 2004 · Docket 03-41722, 03-41749
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The court held that the officers’ stop of Gonzalez’s vehicle satisfied this standard, citing Terry v. Ohio.
- Headnote 2
The court found the officers’ questioning of Gonzalez was properly related in scope to the legitimate stop.
- Headnote 3
Gonzalez, driving with Segura’s permission, therefore possessed authority to consent to the vehicle search.
- Headnote 4
The court concluded that Gonzalez’s consent was voluntarily given, consistent with Zueco’s voluntariness standard.
- Headnote 5
The court concluded that the arresting officers possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle driven by Gonzalez, applying Terry v. Ohio.
- Headnote 6
The opinion held that the officers’ questioning of Gonzalez was properly tied to the reasons for the stop, satisfying the scope limitation.
- Headnote 7
The appellate court affirmed that Gonzalez, driving with Segura’s permission, had authority to consent to the vehicle search, citing United States v. Randall and United States v. Crain.
- Headnote 8
The district court correctly found Gonzalez’s consent was voluntarily given; the opinion referenced United States v. Zueco for the voluntariness standard.
- Headnote 9
The court held that the arresting officers possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop Gonzalez’s vehicle, applying the Terry v. Ohio standard to a traffic stop.
- Headnote 10
The court emphasized that the officers’ questioning of Gonzalez was permissible because it was tied to the reasons for the traffic stop.
- Headnote 11
The district court correctly found that Gonzalez, driving with Segura’s permission, possessed the authority to consent to the vehicle search.
- Headnote 12
The court affirmed that Gonzalez’s consent was voluntary, noting there was no coercive pressure and citing Zueco for the voluntariness standard.
Opinion
Defendants-Appellants Enio Gonzalez and Adan Virelas Segura appeal their convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to suppress. We affirm.
Pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the arresting officers possessed the requisite “reasonable suspicion” to stop the vehicle that Gonzalez was driving. The officers’ actions thereafter, including the questioning of Gonzalez, were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first place. The district court did not clearly err when it found that (1) Gonzalez had consented to the officer’s request to search the vehicle; (2) as Gonzales was driving the vehicle with Segura’s permission, Gonzalez had authority to consent, see United States v. Randall, 887 F.2d 1262, 1265 (5th Cir.1989), United States v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480, 484 (5th Cir.1994); and (3) Gonzalez’s consent to the search was voluntarily given. See United States v. Zueco, 71 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
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.