Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Paul Preston Perkins was convicted on his guilty plea and sentenced for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. His plea was conditioned on the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana obtained after the stop of his vehicle by Border Patrol agents. The Border Patrol agents were patrolling a road closely parallel to the Mexican border, a road alien smugglers frequently use, when told to be on the lookout for an RV loaded with drugs. That morning, the Border Patrol had received information from a confidential informant that a vehicle was being loaded with drugs and would depart from Redford, Texas, that morning. The agent had received accurate information from the informer in the past and he was considered to be reliable. The agents on patrol encountered an RV coming from the direction of Redford, stopped it, were given consent to search by the defendant, and found the marijuana in sugar sacks on the floor of the RV. HOLDING:Affirmed. Anonymous tips may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop. A “be on the look out” (BOLO) report informed by anonymous tips may also provide reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985). In assessing whether an anonymous tip informing a BOLO report creates a sufficient basis for an investigatory stop, the court should assess several factors including: 1. the credibility and reliability of the informant; 2. the specificity of the information contained in the tip or BOLO report; 3. the ability of officers in the field to verify the information in the field; and 4. whether the tip deals with active or recent activity. Here, the informant providing the tip was known to be reliable and credible. He had proven his reliability in the past. His prediction of the time of the RV’s departure from Redford matched the arrival at the location of the patrolling agents, confirming the accuracy of the information. This evidence supports the district court’s finding of reasonable suspicion. This court has held that Border Patrol agents may make roving stops on the basis of reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity, and are not limited to suspicion of violation of immigration laws. United States v. Ceniceros, 204 F.3d 581 (5th Cir. 2000). In United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), the Supreme Court concluded: “We have recently held that stops by the Border Patrol may be justified under circumstances less than those constituting probable cause for arrest or search. Thus, the test is not whether Officers Gray and Evans had probable cause to conclude that the vehicle they stopped would contain “Chevron” and a group of illegal aliens. Rather the question is whether, based upon the whole picture, they, as experienced Border Patrol officers, could reasonably surmise that the particular vehicle they stopped was engaged in criminal activity. On this record they could so conclude.” OPINION:Reavley, J.; Reavley, Jones and Clement, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.