5th Cir.

United States v. Galvan-Martinez

April 2, 2026 ·25-50371 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Jorge Galvan-Martinez's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that a Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. The court held that the totality of circumstances, including proximity to the border and recent illegal activity, supported the stop under established legal standards.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:31

Jorge Galvan-Martinez was indicted for conspiring to transport illegal aliens. Following a stop of his vehicle by a Border Patrol agent, Galvan-Martinez moved to suppress all evidence obtained from that stop, arguing the agent lacked reasonable suspicion. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the totality of circumstances—including the vehicle's proximity to the border, the characteristics of the area, traffic patterns, the agent's experience, and recent illegal activity in the region—supported a finding of reasonable suspicion. Galvan-Martinez subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling while pleading guilty to the underlying charges.

The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions regarding reasonable suspicion de novo. In determining whether reasonable suspicion existed, the court examined the totality of the circumstances known to the agents at the time of the stop, guided by the factors set forth in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. The court emphasized that no single factor is dispositive and that each case must be evaluated based on the specific circumstances and the agents' experience. The court found that Galvan-Martinez failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in concluding that the combination of relevant circumstances provided reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The court relied on precedent from United States v. Jacquinot and United States v. Zapata-Ibarra to support its conclusion that the district court's assessment was not clearly erroneous.

The decision affirms the conviction for conspiring to transport illegal aliens, meaning the evidence seized during the stop remains admissible. The ruling reinforces the application of the totality-of-circumstances test in border stop cases, particularly where factors like proximity to the border and recent illegal activity are present. The case is remanded to the district court for sentencing, as the suppression issue has been resolved in favor of the government.

Play