United States v. Patrick Lowry Coffey & Richard Joseph Sparks, 520 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Patrick Lowry Coffey & Richard Joseph Sparks, 520 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Arthur Mitchell Lueck (ca11, 1982-06-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Arthur Mitchell Lueck
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. Rivera, 595 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Barnard, 553 F.2d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Diaz, 541 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103, 1104 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brian Dennis Barnard
5th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
United States v. Diaz, 541 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103, 1104 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Maria Hernandez Leal
5th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Torres, supra, 537 F.2d at 1300 ; United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103,1104 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ronald David Kidd
5th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
United States v. Dixon, 525 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103,1104 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cantu, 504 F.2d 387, 389, 390 (5th Cir. 1974).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jack M. Dixon, John Thur Bylund and Howard C. Arnold
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Lawrence Edward Hart
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Otkins v. Gilboy
E.D. La. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, e.g., United States v. Garza, 539 F.2d 381, 381 (5th Cir. 1976) (citing United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1975)) (“[T]he odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to conduct the search); State v. Lacrosse, 2020 WL 88838 , at *3 (La.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Kolb v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Coffey, 520 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Patrick Lowry COFFEY and Richard Joseph Sparks, Defendants-Appellants
74-2772.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 8, 1975.
520 F.2d 1103
Ward L. Koehler, El Paso, Tex., for Coffey., Wayne Windle, Jr., El Paso, Tex., for Sparks., William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Ronald R. Ederer, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiffappellee.
Gewin, Godbold, Clark.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 1975 vacated the judgment of this court in the case of Coffey v. United States, 509 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1975) [1] for further consideration[*1104] in light of United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975).

We have carefully considered the decision in that case and have concluded that it does not require reversal of our judgment. In Brignoni-Ponce the Court held that a roving patrol stop must be supported by a reasonable suspicion that the detained vehicle contains aliens illegally in the country. The stop in that case occurred at a permanent checkpoint. However, because the checkpoint was closed due to inclement weather, and because the stop was effectuated after pursuit by officers whose car had been parked along the roadside at the checkpoint, the Court treated the stop as one by roving patrol agents rather than at a permanent traffic checkpoint.

In the case now before us the appellants’ car was stopped by officers at the Sierra Blanca permanent checkpoint for a routine immigration check. When the window of the vehicle was opened, the officer detected a strong odor of marijuana. The checkpoint was not closed; the stop in no way resembled a roving patrol stop.

We find no constitutional dereliction in stopping vehicles at this permanent checkpoint for the purpose of determining the occupants’ citizenship. United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975). Such a stop is considerably less obtrusive than a search. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Cf. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623, 43 U.S.L.W. 5026 (June 30, 1975). [2] The odor of marijuana from the interior of appellants’ vehicle gave the immigration officer probable cause to then conduct the search. The motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied.

Affirmed.

1

. This case involves Patrick Lowry Coffey and Richard Joseph Sparks.

2

. In Ortiz the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question of the legality of permanent checkpoint stops to question motorists when there is no reason to believe that a particular vehicle is carrying aliens.