648 F. App'x 403

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose R. SEGOVIA-AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30600.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 12, 2016.

Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cytheria Dawn Jernigan, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Louisiana state police stopped Jose Segovia-Ayala’s van for a traffic violation. A search of the van revealed several pounds of heroin. Segovia-Ayala was arrested and indicted for possession with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress the evidence from the search and from his responses 'to questions after he was arrested. The district court denied the motion. Segovia-Ayala conditionally pled guilty, and now appeals the denial of the motion to suppress on two grounds. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed below.1

Segovia-Ayala first claims that the search of his van was unlawful. Although the search was warrantless, Segovia-Ayala consented to it.2 He now contends his consent was invalid because it came only amidst “the prolonged detention of the road side stop,” which he asserts was a “constitutional violation.” Segovia-Ayala appears to argue both (1) that because the detention was unconstitutional, his subsequent consent to search and the evidence that resulted were fruit of the poisonous tree;3 and (2) that the prolonged detention amounted to coercion, rendering his consent involuntary.4 Having heard the *404helpful arguments of counsel and reviewed the relevant record, we find no merit in either theory. The district court correctly found that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified extending the stop of Segovia-Ayala’s vehicle,5 and it did not clearly err in determining that his consent was voluntary and valid.

Second, Segovia-Ayala claims that his post-arrest statements should have been suppressed because he did not understand his Miranda rights.6 A state trooper recited Segovia-Ayala’s Miranda rights to him in English. Although he speaks some English, Segovia-Ayala’s first language is Spanish, and he argues he did not understand the recital.7 Again, having carefully examined the record before the district court, we do not find clear error in that court’s determination that Segovia-Ayala understood the Miranda warning given to him.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Segovia-Ayala
648 F. App'x 403

Case Details

Name
United States v. Segovia-Ayala
Decision Date
May 12, 2016
Citations

648 F. App'x 403

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!