United States v. Johnny Emerson

In United States v. Emerson, No. 23-50905 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Emerson’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviews suppression evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and under that standard, the officer in this case identified “numerous specific and articulable facts and inferences that established reasonable suspicion,” sufficient to justify making the traffic stop. In particular, the Fifth Circuit highlighted these facts:

• Prior the stop, the officer had been briefed that:

  • His patrol area was being “inundated with human smuggling.”

  • Human smugglers were using a specific road in that area “to avoid detection at a nearby immigration checkpoint.”

  • He should be “on the lookout” for U-Haul vehicles, which were being used to smuggle humans into the United States.

• Once on patrol, the officer saw Emerson driving on that specific road after midnight in a U-Haul truck. (The officer testified that was in itself unusual.)

• The officer was, at the time, only about 45 miles away from the U.S. border.

• Emerson’s “pattern of traveling east on FM 133 toward Artesia Wells, Texas, was similar to that of the multiple human smuggling cases that Sergeant Luna’s team had previously encountered as part of the DPS’s operation.”

One might query whether those facts ought to be enough to justify stopping a U-Haul, but the district court had found them sufficient. And given the deferential standard of review on appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed.