Page 34 - 2018 sept oct journal_PJ (1)_Neat

coercion that Agent Tamez placed Perales in the Perales also offers that Agent Moya’s presence
front seat of his patrol unit to conduct the during the traffic stop added a “modicum of
computer checks at the time he requested consent. coerciveness” to the situation … Here, in contrast,
We find this contention unpersuasive. there is no indication that Agent Moya exited the
patrol unit during the traffic stop or otherwise
The district court twice noted the oddity of Agent interacted with Perales prior to searching his
Tamez’s practice of placing a detainee in the front truck. Agent Moya’s presence was therefore not
seat of his patrol unit during a traffic stop, and coercive.
suggested this could, under certain circumstances,
constitute coercive police procedures. Considering the foregoing, we uphold the district
court’s finding that Perales voluntarily consented
Here, Agent Tamez’s interaction with Perales was to the search of his vehicle, and affirm the district
cordial, and the record does not indicate that court’s denial of Perales’s motion to suppress.
Agent Tamez used verbal threats or intimidation
to obtain Perales’s consent or that an independent U.S. v. Perales, 5th Cir., No. 17-40005, March 30,
constitutional defect preceded or accompanied 2018.
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.

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal