766 F.2d 219 (6th Cir. 1985), 84-1708, United States v. Collis

Docket Nº:84-1708.
Citation:766 F.2d 219
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Edward COLLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:June 25, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 219

766 F.2d 219 (6th Cir. 1985)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Dennis Edward COLLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84-1708.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

June 25, 1985

Submitted May 1, 1985.

N.C. DeDay LaRene, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

Gary M. Maveal, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case stems from the conviction of the defendant which was entered upon a plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine on March 7, 1984. See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). The defendant appeals, pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal

Page 220

Rules of Criminal Procedure, from a district court order denying his motion to suppress evidence of over 654 grams of cocaine. The drugs were seized by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents during a warrantless search of a bag the defendant carried after deplaning from a Miami, Florida flight at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Prior to the appeal at bar, this Court reversed the initial judgment of the district court granting the defendant's motion to suppress. The district court had based its ruling on a finding that the DEA agent's initial request of the defendant to answer questions constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the fourth amendment. United States v. Collis, 699 F.2d 832 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1119, 103 S.Ct. 3088, 77 L.Ed.2d 1349 (1983). This Court reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case with instructions to consider whether an unreasonable seizure occurred later during the defendant's interaction with the DEA agents and whether the defendant had standing to challenge the agents' search of the shoulder bag after the defendant had flung it over a fence while fleeing from the terminal. 699 F.2d at 835-36. On remand, the district court determined that the defendant was not subsequently "seized" when the agent asked him to accompany the agent to the baggage conveyor. The district court also determined that the DEA agents possessed sufficient reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop of the defendant, and that the defendant had abandoned any privacy interest in the shoulder bag after dropping it and, therefore, had no standing to contest the search of the bag under the fourth amendment. On appeal, the defendant contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on remand. We affirm the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP