Henry Luis Sinohui Contreras, Oscar Sinohui Contreras v. United States

291 F.2d 63 Henry Luis Sinohui CONTRERAS, Oscar Sinohui Contreras, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 17171. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 19, 1961. William F. Gavin, San Diego, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Los Angeles, Cal., Elmer Enstrom, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges. BARNES, Circuit Judge. 1 This is a one count criminal prosecution for the smuggling of marijuana, as proscribed by 21 U.S.C.A. 176a. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3231. This court has jurisdiction over the appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1291. 2 On August 17, 1959, appellants, Henry and Oscar Contreras, and their codefendants, were driving north on Highway 395. Near Temecula, California, about seventy-two miles north of the Mexican border, appellants were stopped by Weldon Potter, a Patrol Inspector employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Potter was merely performing a routine check for 'illegal aliens.' He questioned the occupants of the car as to their place of birth. The person on the right side of the front seat did not give…

(concurring).

Regretfully, I concur in the foregoing as I think I would have found myself obligated to do, in view of the modern precedents, in our recent case of Plazola v. United States, 291 F.2d 56 , had I been a member of the division hearing that case.

I think I am as strong an opponent of “rough stuff” in law enforcement and of the “rap on the door in the night” as anyone. But there is nothing in the facts of Plazola and Contreras that offends my *67 notions of decent law enforcement under the Fourth Amendment. What would deter and what would discourage a good enforcement officer more than these decisions, I do not know.

This is a one count criminal prosecution for the smuggling of marijuana, as proscribed by 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . This court has jurisdiction over the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

On August 17, 1959, appellants, Henry and Oscar Contreras, and their codefendants, were driving north on Highway 395. Near Temecula, California, about seventy-two miles north of the Mexican border, appellants were stopped by Weldon Potter, a Patrol Inspector employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Potter was merely performing a routine check for “illegal aliens.” He questioned the occupants of the car as to their place of birth. The person on the right side of the front seat did not give a clear answer to the question, and Inspector Potter became suspicious. He asked the driver to pull over to the side of the x*oad; and he then continued his investigation. Potter continued to be suspicious of one of the passengers in the back seat who claimed to be a native of Puerto Rico. Potter then requested the driver to open the trunk and the driver complied with this request. An examination of the trunk revealed nothing of significance. Potter…