United States v. Ricardo Soto, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16369

Border Patrol roving patrol on Interstate 35 between Laredo and San Antonio, about 59–60 miles from the border, stationed behind vegetation to observe traffic.
Around 8:00 a.m., a blue Nissan Maxima with Garcia (driver), Soto (front passenger), and Delacruz (rear passenger) passed; windows were partially down.
Delacruz appeared surprised, ducked down, and hid when he saw the agents; later the rear window was rolled up.
Agents followed for about three minutes, observed that Delacruz ducked down in the back seat and could not be seen, and noted Garcia tapping nervously on the steering wheel; no eye contact was made.
Delacruz admitted he was an undocumented alien; Soto was later convicted of unlawfully transporting an illegal alien; Soto challenged the stop as unconstitutional, which the district court denied and which the appellate panel affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion	Soto argues proximity to the border and lack of strong corroborating factors negate suspicion.	The Government contends totality of circumstances—Delacruz’s concealment, nervous behavior, route known for smuggling, and travel from border—support suspicion.	Yes; reasonable suspicion justified the stop.

United States v. Jacquinot, 258 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2001) (establishes factors for reasonable suspicion in roving border stops)
Brignoni-Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975) (articulable facts and factors forming reasonable suspicion near the border)
Moreno-Chaparro v. United States, 180 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 1999) (totality-of-circumstances approach; proximity as a key factor but not sole determinant)
Orozco v. United States, 191 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1999) (proximate distance from border influences weighting of Brignoni-Ponce factors)
United States v. Espinosa-Alvarado, 302 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2002) (focus on explicit concealment behavior as part of reasonable-suspicion analysis)