*1 Pen- If necessity warrants. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING' nothing more nington had done AND PETITION FOR REHEAR- license, run or without speed, EN BANC ar- not have stop sign, he would given citation. merely PER CURIAM: rested but lawfully contained effects Personal Rehearing The Petition for is denied impounded automobiles lawfully within panel and no member of this the benefit protected property send cannot Officers owners. having requested the Court be without custody others in the off returned. to be due knowing is what pre- method only reasonable Local Fifth Circuit Rule the Peti- a val- occurrence such vention Rehearing tion for En Banc is denied. necessitating detention id arrest inventory contents is to automobile person who receipts from take That responsible. to be thereafter inventory clearly undertaken, uncovered here America, UNITED STATES pistol. Plaintiff-Appellee, noted, Maroney, v. Chambers v. 1981: 10, Fn. 90 S.Ct. Wesley REAGOR Lee Wil case unreasonable “It was liams, Defendants-Appellants. house. station to the the car to take No. 29532. arrested the car occupants in All United middle States Court of in the lot parking in a dark Fifth Circuit. night. A careful perhaps not impractical and point was officers, and it safe Rehearing Denied and convenience the owner’s serve June Denied vehicle to have safety car together station keys house.” highly mobile As to automobiles Maroney, Courts,
environment, in the measuring reasonableness g., see, inescapable realities, e.
light of Johnson, v. F.2d 441 (panel) and 431 F.2d 1396 banc).
(en
This, course, done must be regard principle that
with due public lawfully use the entitled to right passage
highways to free being subjected to unreasonable
without seizures, search and Carroll States, U.S.
lawful search of the District Court
Ojinaga, Chihuahua, They Mexico. traveling towing Buick, a Ram- Odessa, Texas, by bler. went where co-defendant, they met another Jose An- gel Marrufo, guilty plea of who entered a to a lesser included and is not offense appeal. before us on All of the indictees were addicted to use heroin and they often re- there was during sorted to use the time involved its litigation. February 5, 1969, Reagor and On Mar rufo crossed the international border at Presidio, Ojinaga, Texas, headed for traveling in the the out Rambler. On journey bound ward Marrufo Dwyer, Kennedy, Pat E. El Robert E. drug as a addict.1 Paso, Tex., defendants-appellants. Mendoza, a narcotics contact one Pedro Seagal Wheatley, Atty., V. U. San S. girl re runner. and the Williamson Tex., Caballero, Antonio, Romualdo Cesar at a motel in Presidio. mained behind Justice, Atty., Division, Dept. Tax Washington, C., plaintiff-appel D. day, The next both men recrossed into lee. the United Presidio, but a thor- COLEMAN, SIMPSON, ough Before and search failed to reveal narcotics RONEY, Judges. Circuit either on their or in the Rambler. away followed them point from the check and observed them COLEMAN, Judge: Circuit they directly drove El Charro In the Pecos Division the United Cafe. There met District the Western men, Mendoza, one of whom was who had Reagor Texas, District and by away arrived taxi and who drove Wesley Lee Williams were indicted in the Rambler. The did not know by jury three and convicted counts Reagor Mendoza. and Marrufo then (1) conspiracy receive, conceal, and point walked occupied to a near the motel transportation facilitate the conceal- and by associates, they re-entered (2) heroin, receipt, ment of 9 Buick, by occupied the 1966 Williams and concealment, and the facilitation companion. the above mentioned female transportation and concealment of The 1966 Buick was then seen heroin, (3) importation and of the hero- Marfa, out of headed toward in, all in violation of 174 of Title 21 § only highway feasibly available The sole on is the U.S.C. issue point, between Presidio and that Texas, validity of a search near away. highway traversed yielded introduced in heroin generally desolate and uninhabited against evidence ritory. regularly deputy, trial below. We affirm. co-operation worked 4, 1969, ficers, February by accompanied telephoned On then the sheriff female also and him co-defendant who was con Marfa told to be on the lookout by occupied Reagor, appealed, for the victed but has not 1966 Buick Williams, Marrufo, Dallas, Texas, out from Williams set woman. pos possession Marrufo convicted Midland in 1967 for marijuana session of in Del inRio heroin. He that his habit testified cost years. thirty forty day, he served five him dollars a pos supported by barbering shoplift convicted 1964 at he Odessa ing. session of heroin. He was convicted at sheriff, accompanied two Texas away, was could be Immigration Highway Patrol by only highway, reached the one Inspector, outside Patrol drove which these left at a Highway 67, S. Marfa U. point beyond junction led to stopped Buick the 1966 unimproved, bad, extremely road o’clock, occupants 10:10 at about *3 conceivably ultimately which one could February 6, the of p. m., search 1969. have reached cir- these the of Buick resulted in the location cumstances, the distance to Marfa ofwas ash of heroin concealed below an legal significance. no border search tray the by the left rear seat of located vehicle. Marsh, It held in was that agents any say the this search had reason ordinarily qualified search, though as a border neither a even not requirements probable it the did meet measuring up probable cause, dis to a cause. sixty-three tance of from the bor Feb indicted on of that case der under the circumstances began August ruary 24, trial 1969. The might not have a border search stretched 18, 1969. filed no motion There had been beyond breaking point. in the The search suppress the seized counsel to retained gov held because the Marsh was invalid 41(e) the provided heroin as to “the ernment failed show circumstanc Procedure, Criminal to the officers es known may have failure Title 18 U.S.C. This reasonably justified request re the been, been, at it caused least could interior”, F. layed to officers the problems special encountered the represent 2d 325. narcotic addicts. to efforts showed, example, that on It is true that attitude which way to Marfa from Presidio back tried, this case was sheriff ghost town, parties stopped at a ahead to who called injections of Wil took heroin. each two call, received the were not cold” who much and was “out took too liams period testify of time. permitted for a considerable to as to details sheriff, what the told the other attempted to make
Defense counsel suppress had to the trial on the lookout be the individ- motion begun. court, in the exercise This uals the automobile involved. The rejected untimely. The discretion, as show, however, record does significance, rejection how- no is of deputy regularly co-op- worked in close surrounding ever, all of the facts because eration with Customs officers. thoroughly near Marfa were the search knew that a addict and proof for developed in the course companion Country, had returned to this defense, conse- prosecution gone directly had to a rendezvous with doubt left in no quence of we are individuals, had surrendered search, leav- a valid border car in had traveled to complain ing room to no Mexico, immediately con- from had made the heroin the introduction of originally tact with those who came with below. trial took afterwards them First, are of the view that we night through a desolate off in the imposed no “unreason- search at ritory, officer no elasticity” border, Marsh v. able ordinarily be States, Cir., 344 F.2d far space miles. Marrufo, them one of 324. rendering cry had “travelers who from registered addict, left and returned subject had country recently entered this Country at Presidio. arrest and to almost unlimited any simple re- cause save rejoined companions at Presidio. without in- at an quest of officer a border although town, sixty miles The nearest Marsh, supra, 344 F.2d at point”, terior JOHNSON, Petitioner- Roderick Appellant, In Hill, United States v. we held that the rea- WAINWRIGHT, Director, suspicion agent Divi sonable of a L. is Louie Florida, Corrections, State sion sufficient to authorize a border search. Respondent-Appellee. Hill, supra, quoted approv- In we No. 71-1022. :2 al from United v. Glaziou Summary Calendar.* may “The class of who subjected to a border search limi- Circuit. Fifth suspected persons ted *4 upon en- searched contraband first
tering the States. Also includ- persons
ed in the class who work leaving area; area when border * ** persons engaged suspicious *** area;
activity near a border
and, situations, persons some cleared an
vehicles check-point and have
initial customs Therefore, entered United States. di- an individual has
we hold that when ** area, rect contact border rea- individual’s movements are
or an area, sonably related the border * * * a member that individual customs that a class suspicions may, are aroused ficer stop ours), while (emphasis and search
the individual is still within
area.” justi-
We think that these standards
fied the search here issue and that accordingly fail. District Court REHEARING FOR PETITION
ON REHEAR- FOR
AND PETITION EN BANC CURIAM:
PER Rehearing is denied Petition payiel member on the Court having requested the Court Local Petition for Rule
Fifth Circuit
is denied.