United States v. Janet Archuleta
463 F. App'x 412
5th Cir.2012Background
- Archuleta stopped on Highway 166 in Texas; 376 pounds marijuana found in backseat.
- Archuleta indicted for possession with intent to distribute; moved to suppress only the stop evidence.
- District court credited Trooper Pearson’s credibility and found reasonable suspicion based on pacing speed.
- Trooper Pearson testified using pacing to estimate 58 mph in a 55 mph zone; he calibrated speedometer daily.
- Archuleta challenged timing of the stop and the credibility of pacing; district court denied suppression.
- Court affirmed denial of suppression and Archuleta’s conviction (60 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Archuleta | Pearson | Yes; stop based on pacing was reasonable |
| Did the stop precede the reasonable-suspicion determination (timing issue) plain error? | Archuleta | Pearson | No plain error; no clear pre-stop signaling |
| Is pacing a credible, objectively reasonable method to establish suspicion? | Archuleta | Pearson | Yes; pacing deemed credible and acceptable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 1999) (pacing approved for determining speeding)
- United States v. Montes-Hernandez, 350 F. App’x 862 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished; reasonable suspicion context)
- United States v. Gomez, 623 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Newman, 472 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2006) (plain error and suppression standards)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain error framework)
- United States v. Frisbie, 550 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1977) (stop defined by officer signaling vehicle to stop)