The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41251
Summary Calendar
KARL GAYWIN ACLESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JON CARONA; ALTON BAISE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-383
- - - - - - - - - -
December 14, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Karl Gaywin Aclese, who is now a federal prisoner (# 04193-
078), appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’
motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
Aclese contends that the district court erred.
Aclese has alleged that the defendant law-enforcement
employees violated his Fourth Amendment and due process rights
when they stopped his car and arrested him pursuant to a federal
warrant, impounded the car despite his request that it be towed
to a private lot, performed an illegal inventory search of the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
No. 99-41251
- 2 -
car, and convinced a state judge to issue a search warrant for
his home based on these alleged actions.
No genuine issue of material remained with respect to the
district court’s granting of summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity. Kipps v. Caillier, 197 F.3d 765, 768 (5th
Cir. 1999), cert. denied, S. Ct. (U.S. Oct. 2, 2000, No.
99-1862), 2000 WL 693829; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
325 (1986). Aclese failed to show that his arrest pursuant to a
facially valid arrest warrant violated his clearly established
rights. See Vance v. Nunnery, 137 F.3d 270, 276 n.3 (5th Cir.
1998). Even if Aclese’s disputed allegations regarding the
seizure of his car and the inventory search are true, the
officers involved did not violate his clearly established rights
because, under local regulations, they were authorized to conduct
an inventory search of his car regardless whether they impounded
the car. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 (1987);
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 370 (1976). See also
United States v. Privett, 68 F.3d 101, 103-04 (5th Cir. 1995).
Aclese’s conclusional and speculative allegations about the
validity of the search warrant preclude relief on his claim
relating to the search of his residence. See Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978). His assertions that a state judge
and state officers violated Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
in the issuance and execution of that warrant are frivolous.
See United States v. Rivas, 99 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 1996).
Aclese’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.