United States v. Sariles
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sariles was stopped at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry with 97.3 kilograms of marijuana in a van.
- He was charged in a two-count indictment with importation of fifty kilograms or more and possession with intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more.
- Sariles claimed he was acting under the apparent authority of Deputy Kevin Roberts to aid a narcotics operation.
- Roberts allegedly warned Sariles not to transport further loads and suggested he would be on his own if he did.
- The district court ruled the public authority defense was unavailable because Roberts lacked actual authority, and evidence of belief was inadmissible.
- Sariles proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts and was convicted on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public authority defense requires actual authority | Sariles argues Rule 12.3 imports apparent authority. | Sariles asserts reliance on apparent authority can exonerate under public authority. | Actual authority required; defense unavailable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 1996) (defense available when engaged in covert activity)
- United States v. Pitt, 193 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 1999) (actual authority required; Rule 12.3 does not expand defense)
- United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2001) (apparent authority not sufficient for public authority defense)
- United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1994) (reliance on apparent authority is not a defense)
- United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984) (misplaced reliance on apparent authority is a mistake of law)
- United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995) (CIA authority could not authorize federal drug law violations)
- United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 1994) (distinguishes between actual and apparent authority in public authority)
- United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir. 1986) (limits on public authority defense when official lacks power to authorize law violations)
- United States v. Barker, 546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (apparent authority cannot substitute for actual authority)