United States v. Carol Elaine Gordon, 722 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Carol Elaine Gordon, 722 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In the Interest of C.C-S. (coloctapp, 2021-10-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of C.C-S.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Similarly, the Fifth Circuit held in United Stat es v. Gordon , 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir. 1983), that the officers had reason able suspicion that the occupants of a motor home were e ngaged in criminal activity because the motor home was r egistered to the same address as another motor home that had been seized in a prior marijuana arrest and one of the occupants t hey had identified was a member of a marijuana smuggling group known to use motor homes for it s smuggling activities. ¶ 40 Here, in contrast, the dean’s descript ion of C.C-S.’s past behavior was unrelated to the Saf e2Tell …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Salzano (2×)
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704-05 (9th Cir.1989) (absent evidence that car was specially modified to carry large quantities of drugs, that it was heavily loaded, or that the vehicle was “of a particular make or model that has been expressly linked to drug trafficking,” the mere fact that defendant was driving a car with large trunk capacity was not sufficient to support reasonable suspicion); cf. United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (use of motor home, inter alia, sufficient to support reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking where detai…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Salzano (2×)
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704-05 (9th Cir.1989) (absent evidence that car was specially modified to carry large quantities of drugs, that it was heavily loaded, or that the vehicle was “of a particular make or model that has been expressly linked to drug trafficking,” the mere fact that defendant was driving a car with large trunk capacity was not sufficient to support reasonable suspicion); cf. United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (use of motor home, inter alia, sufficient to support reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking where detai…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Salzano
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1989) (absent evidence that car was specially modified to carry large quantities of drugs, that it was heavily loaded, or that the vehicle was “of a particular make or model that has been expressly linked to drug trafficking,” the mere fact that defendant was driving a car with large trunk capacity was not sufficient to support reasonable suspicion); cf. United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (use of motor home, inter alia, sufficient to support reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking where det…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. De La Rosa-Valenzuela
W.D. Tex. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Henke, 775 F.2d 641, 645 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. McSween
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir.1989) (the officer’s detection of marihuana “in itself ... justified the subse *687 quent search of [the defendant’s] vehicle”); United States v. Henke, 775 F.2d 641, 645 (5th Cir.1985) (“Once the officer smelled the marijuana, he had probable cause to search the vehicle.”); United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1983) (same); United States v. McLaughlin, 578 F.2d 1180, 1183 (5th Cir.1978) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Miguel Sandoval
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
That is the direct thrust of our opinion in United States v. Santillanes, 848 F.2d 1103, 1107-08 (10th Cir.1988) and of United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 59-60 (2d Cir.1977) (adhering to United States v. Fields, 458 F.2d 1194, 1198 (3d Cir.1972))—and we have found no case elsewhere that even suggests the contrary (contrast cases that couple such knowledge of prior criminal activity with other factors that do foster a reasonable suspicion of current criminal activity, such as United States v. Daoust, 916 F.2d 757, 759 (1st Cir.1990); United States v. Wheeler, 800 F.2d 100, 103-04 (7th Cir.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ben Lee Basey, Armando Jose Lopez, and Oscar Quirarte Ponce, Defendants (2×)
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
We determine that the record clearly shows that the totality of the information available to the deputies justified a reasonable suspicion that Basey may well have been involved in the burglary of Naumann's home and that their subsequent investigatory stop of his car was accordingly proper. 35 The evidence indicates that area residents had seen Basey's car aimlessly wandering back and forth on the little-traveled, rural roads earlier that day; 14 that Naumann saw Basey's car close to his home shortly before Naumann discovered the burglary; that Naumann's curiosity was stirred to the degree tha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ricardo Alonza Gomez, Antonio Reyes Espinoza and Gilbert Barnett Hartman (2×)
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Since at least one defendant is entitled to challenge each seizure, and since we ultimately find these challenges to be without merit, we do not find it necessary to reach the standing question 2 See, e.g., United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690, 694 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 30 , 88 S.Ct. at 1884 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 911 ; United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 113-14 (5th Cir.1983) 3 See United States v. Kent, 691 F.2d at 1379 ; United States v. McLeroy, 584 F.2d 746 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. White, 648 F.2d 29, 41 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 454…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Henry William Henke
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1983) (odor of marijuana from motor home supplied probable cause to search vehicle); United States v. McLaughlin, 578 F.2d 1180, 1183 (5th Cir. 1978) (probable cause clearly existed when agent detected odor of marijuana); United States v. De Witt, 569 F.2d 1338, 1339 (5th Cir.1978) (agent smelled marijuana when approaching car and this gave probable cause to search car; therefore search was legal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Harold Castle (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 2016 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (reasonable suspicion to stop a motor home existed where officers identified driver as a member of a drug smuggling group, knew the motor home was registered to the same address as a motor home seized in an earlier drug arrest, and knew the group’s smuggling operations involved the use of motor homes).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Sharon Lanelle Martinez
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Medina, 543 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1109 , 97 S.Ct. 1144 , 51 L.Ed.2d 563 (1977). 24 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Augustin Alonso Lopez
10th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1326 (11th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 464 U.S. 914 , 104 S.Ct. 275 , 276, 78 L.Ed.2d 256 (1984); and United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 558 F.2d 956, 964 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1050 , 98 S.Ct. 900 , 54 L.Ed.2d 802 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Carol Elaine GORDON, Defendant-Appellant
83-1290.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 20, 1983.
722 F.2d 112
1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14307
Michael Rodgers, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Sidney Powell, Michael McDonald, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Clark, Rubin, Jolly.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Carol Elaine Gordon was found guilty of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. She challenges her conviction on the ground that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress as evidence the one thousand pounds of marijuana which was found as the result of a warrantless stop and search of a motor home in which she was a passenger. Finding that the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress was correct, we affirm.

I.

On January 21, 1983, United States Customs Patrol Officers James Straba and Mario Muniz were returning to their headquarters in Big Bend National Park, Texas, when they observed a motor home stuck in the mud alongside Highway 118, approximately fifty miles from the Texas-Mexico border. The officers, who were in an unmarked patrol vehicle, approached the motor home and offered assistance to its occupants, a Latin male with one eye that rolled up in his head, and a bearded Caucasian male. [1] After the vehicle was freed from the mud, the men drove it south on Highway 118. Because the officers thought it unusual for two men to be traveling in a motor home in that area, they noted the license plate number of the vehicle.

Upon returning to their headquarters, the officers related details of the encounter to their supervisor who immediately recognized the description of the Latin male as that of Jose Lozano, a member of the Alfred Lozano marijuana smuggling group. A computer check of the vehicle’s license number revealed that the motor home was registered to the same address as a vehicle seized in a 1,300-pound marijuana case in June 1982. The headquarter’s files indicated that the standard operating procedure of the group was to bring marijuana from the border area by mule train, transfer it to motor homes, “[a]nd then in daylight hours ... move out as if they were tourists with the rest of the motor homes.” Based upon this information, the officers decided to establish surveillance the next morning on each of the three major routes from the border and to stop the motor home if it were again encountered.

On the morning of January 22, Straba and Muniz observed the same motor home traveling north on Highway 118. After following it for approximately fifteen or twenty minutes, the officers, with the assistance of the Texas Department of Public Safety, stopped the vehicle. When Straba approached the motor home, its occupants, Carol Elaine Gordon and Fred Gordon, [2] were already standing outside of the vehicle. Fred Gordon exclaimed, “You got me, you got me, you caught us.” A strong odor of marijuana emanated from the open door of the motor home. A search of the interi- or revealed one thousand pounds of marijuana.

II.

On appeal, Gordon argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant her motion to suppress because “there was not sufficient probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed and to justify the warrantless stop and search of the vehicle” in which she was a passenger.

A law enforcement officer is not required to have probable cause to make an investigatory stop of a vehicle. Such a stop is lawful if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle[*114] are engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 694, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); United States v. Sutton, 636 F.2d 96 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Allison, 616 F.2d 779 (5th Cir.1980). Here, the stop of the motor home on January 22 was a proper investigative stop based upon the reasonable suspicion of Officers Straba and Muniz that the occupants were engaged in criminal activity. Their identification of the Latin male as a member of the Alfred Lozano marijuana smuggling group, their knowledge that the motor home was registered to the same address as a motor home which had been seized in an earlier marijuana arrest, and their knowledge that the marijuana smuggling activities of the Alfred Lozano group involved the use of motor homes, were enough to constitute the reasonable suspicion necessary to make the investigatory stop.

After the motor home was properly stopped, the odor of marijuana emanating from the open door of the motor home supplied probable cause to search the vehicle. United States v. Villarreal, 565 F.2d 932, 937 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 824, 99 S.Ct. 92, 58 L.Ed.2d 116 (1978). As a result, the seizure of the marijuana did not violate Gordon’s fourth amendment rights.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is

AFFIRMED.

1

. The bearded Caucasian male was later identified as Fred Gordon.

2

. Jose Lozano was not a passenger in the motor home at the time of the stop.