SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(US)(ca5) 88

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Davis, Haynes, Costa
United States – Appellant
Versus
Maria Molina-Isidoro – Respondent



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals No. 17-50070 Fifth Circuit

FILED March 1, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. MARIA ISABEL MOLINA-ISIDORO,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge: ∗ After discovering kilos of meth in the suitcase Maria Isabel Molina- Isidoro was carrying across the border, customs agents looked at a couple of apps on her cell phone. Molina argues that the evidence found during this warrantless search of her phone should be suppressed. Along with amici, she invites the court to announce general rules concerning the application of the government’s historically broad border-search authority to modern technology for which the Supreme Court has recognized increased privacy interests. See Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489–91, 2493 (2014). We decline the invitation to do so because the nonforensic search of Molina’s cell phone at the

∗ Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only. Case: 17-50070 Document: 00514369559 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2018

No. 17-50070 border was supported by probable cause. That means at a minimum the agents had a good-faith basis for believing the search did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. I. Molina attempted to enter the United States at a border crossing in El Paso. Customs and Border Protection officers “detected anomalies” while x- raying her suitcase. When they questioned Molina, she acknowledged owning the suitcase but claimed that it only contained clothing. At a secondary inspection area, in response to questions about her travels, Molina said she had delivered clothing to her brother in Juarez, Mexico and would be flying home to Tijuana, Mexico from El Paso. At that point, an officer opened Molina’s suitcase and noticed a modification. After rescanning the suitcase, the officers located an “anomaly . . . covered by electrical tape.” That anomaly was a hidden compartment, which held 4.32 kilograms of a white crystal substance. A drug-sniffing dog alerted officers to the presence of narcotics, and the crystal substance field-tested positive for methamphetamine. Later laboratory tests confirmed that result. Agents from the Department of Homeland Security soon arrived on the scene. Molina could not explain how the drugs made their way into her suitcase, though she admitted that no one could have placed them there without her knowledge. Then Molina again recounted her recent travels. She claimed to have taken a taxi from El Paso to Juarez to visit her brother. But she could not remember his address. She reiterated that she was returning to El Paso to fly home to Tijuana. But she had not yet purchased a ticket. When the agents confronted Molina about why she was carrying so much personal clothing for such a short trip, she remained silent. And when the agents told Molina that her story made little sense, she ended the interview and requested

2 Case: 17-50070 Document: 00514369559 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2018

No. 17-50070 a lawyer. Either at that point, or during the questioning, agents s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top