848 F.2d 58 (4th Cir. 1988), 87-5644, United States v. Garcia

Docket Nº:87-5644(L), 87-6140.
Citation:848 F.2d 58
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Manuel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Manuel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:June 01, 1988
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 58

848 F.2d 58 (4th Cir. 1988)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Jorge Manuel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Jorge Manuel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 87-5644(L), 87-6140.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

June 1, 1988

Argued May 6, 1988.

John Flowers Mark, Jr. (Michael S. Lieberman, Zwerling, Mark, Sutherlund, Ginsberg and Lieberman, P.C., on brief), for defendant-appellant.

Michael D. Shepard, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. (Henry E. Hudson, U.S. Atty., James M. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and SPROUSE and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge:

A jury found Jorge Manuel Garcia, defendant, guilty of possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844(a) but not guilty either of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, or travel in interstate commerce with intent to promote, manage,

Page 59

and establish distribution of cocaine, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952(a)(3). Defendant appeals, claiming that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents lacked probable cause to arrest him and therefore the marijuana found on his person in the search incident to that arrest was seized in violation of the fourth amendment and therefore could not be used as evidence to convict him. Defendant also challenges the validity of his sentence in several respects. However, defendant has already served his full sentence, and because we perceive no collateral consequences resulting from the sentence already served, we think that the challenges to the validity of the sentence are moot, and we decline to consider them. With respect to the probable cause determination, we affirm.

I.

On May 30, 1985, at around 10:15 a.m. Carlos Salas (Salas) and defendant deplaned at Washington National Airport from a flight originating in Miami, Florida. On that date, DEA agents Mark Measer, Dwight McKinney and John Lee were operating surveillance of flights arriving at the airport from cities known to be sources of illegal narcotics. As Salas deplaned, Measer and McKinney determined that he had characteristics fitting the drug courier profile. Specifically his flight originated from a known source of narcotics, he appeared nervous, wore sunglasses indoors, and was squeezing a white handkerchief in his hand. As Salas entered the central hall of the main terminal, Salas paused, then turned toward the claims area where he briefly conversed with defendant. While Salas and defendant had carry-on luggage, they picked up no additional baggage at the claims area. The two then proceeded toward the taxi area.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP