139 F.3d 893 (4th Cir. 1998), 97-4520, U.S. v. Adjei
|Citation:||139 F.3d 893|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel ADJEI, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 18, 1998|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted Feb. 27, 1998.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-97-204)
John Clifton Rand, LAW OFFICES OF J.C. RAND, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Patricia S. Rim, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Samuel Adjei appeals from the district court order affirming his conviction by a magistrate judge for possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (1994). We affirm.
In October 1996, Park Police Officer Franz Ferstl noticed Adjei sitting in a parked car in the Roach's Run turn-off on the George Washington Parkway in Arlington, Virginia. Ferstl checked the vehicle because it was in a known narcotics area but did not see any suspicious activity. Ferstl did notice, however, that the registration and inspection stickers on the vehicle were expired. Ferstl approached the vehicle and requested Adjei's license and registration. During this time, Ferstl noticed that Adjei was aggressively chewing on something. Ferstl asked Adjei to step out from the vehicle and then asked him what he had in his mouth. Adjei removed a large pink object from his mouth, stated that it was bubble gum, and threw it aside onto the pavement. Ferstl picked up the object and noticed that it was actually a pink piece of paper that contained marijuana. Ferstl then arrested Adjei.
Adjei moved to suppress all evidence, and the magistrate judge denied the motion. Adjei subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana. Adjei then appealed the magistrate judge's denial of the motion to suppress, and the district court affirmed. Adjei timely appealed. On appeal, Adjei asserts that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the encounter between Adjei and Ferstl constituted...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP