United States v. Castillo, No. 14-41425 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant conditionally plead guilty to bringing in and harboring aliens, and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence arising from a traffic stop. The officer that pulled defendant over asserts that he stopped defendant on reasonable suspicion that he was driving in the left lane without passing, in violation of Texas law. The court followed Abney v. State, Mouton v. State, and Baker v. State and concluded that a court must “determine, based on the statute, whether [a] sign is applicable on the facts of each case[.]" In this case, the officer first observed defendant 5.3 miles from the closest sign - far short of Abney’s fifteen-to-twenty miles and between Baker’s six and Mouton’s four. The officer observed defendant for several minutes, like in Baker, and allowed an opportunity for defendant to change lanes, like in Mouton and unlike in Garcia. Finally, unlike in Abney, defendant advanced no credible alternative reason for driving in the left lane. All three cases support the conclusion that the officer had reason to suspect defendant was committing a traffic infraction. Because the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.