Page 53 - 2019 A Police Officers Guide

that they were not completed when Agent Tamez sought Perales’s consent. That Agent Tamez
had not completed running the necessary computer checks before seeking Perales’s consent, and
that Perales does not challenge the length of time that elapsed before Agent Tamez sought
consent, are both crucial to our determination that the district court did not clearly err in finding
Agent Tamez’s retention of Perales’s identification documents was not coercive.
Perales cites as an additional indication of coercion that Agent Tamez placed Perales in the front
seat of his patrol unit to conduct the computer checks at the time he requested consent. We find
this contention unpersuasive.
The district court twice noted the oddity of Agent Tamez’s practice of placing a detainee in the
front seat of his patrol unit during a traffic stop, and suggested this could, under certain
circumstances, constitute coercive police procedures.

Here, Agent Tamez’s interaction with Perales was cordial, and the record does not indicate that
Agent Tamez used verbal threats or intimidation to obtain Perales’s consent or that an
independent constitutional defect preceded or accompanied Agent Tamez’s placing Perales in his
patrol unit. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Agent Tamez did not
act coercively by placing Perales in the front seat of his police cruiser to run computer checks.

Perales also offers that Agent Moya’s presence during the traffic stop added a “modicum of
coerciveness” to the situation … Here, in contrast, there is no indication that Agent Moya exited
the patrol unit during the traffic stop or otherwise interacted with Perales prior to searching his
truck. Agent Moya’s presence was therefore not coercive.

Considering the foregoing, we uphold the district court’s finding that Perales voluntarily
consented to the search of his vehicle, and affirm the district court’s denial of Perales’s motion to
suppress.

th
U.S. v. Perales, 5 Cir., No. 17-40005, March 30, 2018.
*************************************************************
TH
CAVITY SEARCH, BORDER SEARCH EXCEPTION TO 4 AMENDMENT

This case stems from a series of increasingly intrusive body searches performed by state medical
staff during a border stop in El Paso, Texas. The district court dismissed Appellant’s claims
based on qualified immunity, failure to allege a valid claim for county liability under § 1983, and
failure to meet Texas state tort standards. We affirm.

Appellant Gloria Bustillos (“Bustillos”) is a U.S. citizen. On September 19, 2013, Bustillos was
crossing the Paso del Norte Bridge from Juarez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Bustillos did not
have any illegal drugs or contraband. After presenting her passport to Customs and Border
Protection agents, Bustillos was immediately taken into custody despite telling agents that she
was not in possession of narcotics. An increasingly intrusive series of searches followed.
First, two female agents conducted a pat down. The agents found no drugs. The agents then held
Bustillos for a K-9 search. The K-9 failed to alert to the presence of drugs. Two agents then took
Bustillos to a restroom, where they ordered her to pull down her pants and underwear and bend
over slightly. The agents conducted a visual inspection of Bustillos’ vaginal and anal area.
Again, the agents found no drugs. Despite no evidence of drugs, the agents placed tape on

li A i i Offi G id

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 45 2019 Edition