Case: 13-51114

Document: 00513025810

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/30/2015

LAW OFFICE OF JAVIER N. MALDONADO, PC

ATTORNEY AT LAW
8918 TESORO DR., STE. 575
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78217
jmaldonado.law@gmail.com

TELEPHONE
(210) 277-1603

TELECOPIER
(210) 587-4001

April 30, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC CASE FILING
Lyle W. Cayce, Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
600 S. Maestri Place
New Orleans, LA 70130-3408
Re:

Rynearson v. United States, No. 13-51114 (Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Pending)

Dear Mr. Cayce:

Mr Rynearson writes to alert this Court to the Supreme Courts decision in
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972 (Apr. 21, 2015). See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).
Rodriguez supports Rynearsons arguments that the panels decision conflicted with
Supreme Court precedent when it approved a suspicionless checkpoint detention for at
least 23 minutes longer than reasonably necessary to complete the purpose of the stop
(immigration). See Pet. for Rehg at 7-10.
In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court adhere[d] to the line drawn years before the
stop at issue here, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), that a stop exceeding the
time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitutions
shield against unreasonable seizures. Rodriguez, slip op. at 1. Specifically, the Supreme
Court reiterated that extending a stop for 8 minutes longer than necessary to complete its
purpose (traffic inquiry) violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 5-8. Like a Terry stop,
the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the
seizures mission. Id. at 5. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the
traffic infraction areor reasonably should have beencompleted. Id. That time is
measured by the governments diligence. See id. at 5, 8 (the Government acknowledges
that an officer always has to be reasonably diligent). Although Rodriguez declined to
comply with the request that he exit the vehicle at the beginning of the stop, id. at 2, the
Supreme Court did not hold that declining that request justified extending the stop. That
contradicts the panel majoritys conclusion that declining a request to exit the vehicle,
among other things, justifies extending the detention beyond the time reasonably
necessary to inquire into immigration. See Pet. for Rehg at 10-12.
Although Rodriguez involved a traffic stop, this Court has delineated the bounds
of immigration stops by applying jurisprudence regarding stops based on reasonable

Case: 13-51114

Document: 00513025810

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/30/2015

suspicion. United States v. Ellis, 330 F.3d 677, 679-80 (5th Cir. 2003). Rodriguez
confirms the conflict between the majoritys opinion and Supreme Court precedent.

Sincerely

/s/Javier N. Maldonado

Javier N. Maldonado

cc:

All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)