Page 37 - 2023 May June TPA Journal_Neat

emptying of pockets, wallets, or purses routine border searches and therefore did not
are all routine searches, and require no require reasonable suspicion.
justification other than the person’s Finally, we do not address the constitutionality of
decision to cross our national the search of Tenorio’s cell phones. The district
boundary. court made a finding, which Tenorio does not
“Non-routine” border searches, on the dispute on appeal, that Agent Conner did not use
other hand, are more intrusive and any information from the phone search before or
require a particularized reasonable during his interview with Tenorio. And the parties’
suspicion before a search can be stipulation of facts for Tenorio’s trial includes no
conducted. Non-routine searches evidence from the cell-phone search. Accordingly,
include body cavity searches, strip there is no evidence to be suppressed.
searches, and x-rays. These types of The district court did not err in denying Tenorio’s
objectively intrusive searches would suppression motion. Tenorio’s conviction and
likely cause any person significant sentence are AFFIRMED.
embarrassment, and invade the privacy
and dignity of the individual. U.S. V. Tenorio, No, 5 th Cir., 21-50989, Dec. 09,
2022.
Here, Tenorio first argues that the canine sniff of ****************************************
his person required reasonable suspicion. It did not. ****************
The record indicates that the dog sniffed around
Tenorio’s vehicle and person and gave a positive SEARCH & SEIZURE – consent
alert to Tenorio’s boot. As the court in Kelly
explained, “a canine sniff, even one involving some Paul Malagerio was seized by federal agents under
bodily contact, is no more intrusive than a frisk or an administrative warrant. A search of his trailer
a pat-down, both of which clearly qualify as routine revealed several firearms that Malagerio, an illegal
border searches.” The canine sniff here was a alien, could not lawfully possess. He moved to
routine border search and therefore did not require suppress evidence of the weapons, maintaining that
individualized suspicion. the arrest and search violated the Fourth
Amendment. The district court denied Malagerio’s
Tenorio’s second argument fails for similar reasons. motion, and he appeals. Malagerio says that the
He contends that his detention was agents exceeded the scope of their administrative
unconstitutionally prolonged and amounted to a warrant by arresting him not in a public place but
nonroutine border search, requiring reasonable in his doorway. We conclude that the district court
suspicion. But the length and circumstances of did not err in finding that Malagerio was not
Tenorio’s detention were consistent with a routine arrested in his home or its curtilage. As for the
border search. The secondary search lasted search of the trailer, the record confirms the district
approximately ten minutes and consisted of court’s finding that Malagerio consented. Because
questioning by CBP agents, a search of Tenorio’s there was no error in the denial of the motion to
vehicle, a canine sniff of his vehicle and person, a suppress, we affirm the conviction.
weapons frisk, and an eventual request that Tenorio
lift his leg. These ordinary investigative measures Malagerio is a Canadian citizen. He last entered the
are, individually and collectively, a far cry from United States in 2013 without a visa, meaning that
“cavity searches, strip searches, . . . x-rays” and he could not legally remain for more than six
other “objectively intrusive searches” that “invade months. In 2020, the Department of Homeland
the ‘privacy and dignity of the individual.’” Security received a tip that Malagerio was in the
Tenorio’s detention did not exceed the bounds of country illegally. After further investigation, the

32 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal