USA vs. Siller, (5th Cir. 1998)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40177 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SANTOS SILLER Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (C-97-241-1) December 4, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Siller timely appeals his conviction for possession wit h intent to distribute cocaine. In particular, Siller contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his automobile. Siller claims that the initial stop of his automobile was illegal. “On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress we review the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law de novo .” United States v. Johnson , 16 F.3d 69, 71 (5th Cir. 1994). The evidence adduced below is viewed most favorably to the prevailing party unless it is inconsistent with the trial court’s findings or clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Shabazz , 993 F.2d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1993).
The trial court’s finding that Siller drove on t he improved shoulder prior to initiating his right hand turn is not clearly erroneous. Based on this finding, the trial court correctly concluded that officer Dial had probable cause to believe that Siller had committed a traffic violation. S ee Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (“[P]robable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would ‘warrant a man of reaso nable caution in the belief.’”) (quoting Carroll v. U nited States , 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925)). That Dial had an alternative motive for stopping Siller’s vehicle is of no moment. S ee Whren v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1774 (1996).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Supreme Court - Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Skirvin George Johnson, Defendant-Appellant., 16 F.3d 69 (5th Cir. 1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mateen Yusuf Shabazz, A/K/a Edward L. Eberhart, A/K/a Edward Wallace, and Keith Lamar Parker, Defendants-Appellants. No. 92-4822. Summary Calendar., 993 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. 1993)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
