Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. John Albert Brooks, 120 F.3d 271, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case involved John Brooks, who was convicted of possession of phencyclidine (PCP) with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Brooks consented to searches by police at the airport, so his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. It also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Brooks knowingly possessed and intended to distribute a large quantity of PCP found in his suitcase.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-07-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 120 F.3d 271 Docket: 96-6343

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case involved John Brooks, who was convicted of possession of phencyclidine (PCP) with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Brooks consented to searches by police at the airport, so his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. It also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Brooks knowingly possessed and intended to distribute a large quantity of PCP found in his suitcase.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views3 pages

    United States v. John Albert Brooks, 120 F.3d 271, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case involved John Brooks, who was convicted of possession of phencyclidine (PCP) with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Brooks consented to searches by police at the airport, so his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. It also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Brooks knowingly possessed and intended to distribute a large quantity of PCP found in his suitcase.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    120 F.

    3d 271
    97 CJ C.A.R. 1252
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    John Albert BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 96-6343.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    July 23, 1997.

    Patrick M. Ryan, United States Attorney, and Randal A. Sengel, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Paul Antonio Lacy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City,
    Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.*
    KELLY, Circuit Judge.

    Mr. Brooks appeals his conviction for possession of phencyclidine (PCP) with
    intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), for which he was
    sentenced to 144 months imprisonment to be followed by five years of
    supervised release. He contends that the district court erred in denying his
    motion to suppress physical evidence, and that his conviction is not supported
    by sufficient evidence. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and we
    affirm.

    Mr. Brooks argues that the PCP police officers found in a container in his

    suitcase should be suppressed because the officers violated his Fourth


    Amendment rights. Mr. Brooks was stopped by police officers in the Oklahoma
    City airport, after the officers had received information from Los Angeles that a
    passenger named John Brooks arrived late for his flight, paid cash for his
    ticket, and was bound for Oklahoma City. The officers told Mr. Brooks that he
    was not under arrest and was free to leave, and then asked to speak with him
    about drugs. He agreed. An officer then asked to look at Mr. Brooks' ticket, his
    briefcase, and to pat him down. He agreed to each request. Next, an officer
    asked to look inside his suitcase. Mr. Brooks agreed. The officer found a
    tupperware bowl wrapped in silver duct tape. When asked what was in the
    bowl, Mr. Brooks responded, "grandmother's juice." Mr. Brooks was arrested.
    Soon thereafter, the container was opened revealing a half gallon of PCP.
    3

    Mr. Brooks argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because his
    encounter with the police amounted to an investigative detention without
    reasonable suspicion, and the search of the container required a warrant. We
    review the district court's findings of fact for clear error, and we review de
    novo the determination of whether a search or seizure occurred. United States
    v. Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir.1996). Based upon the casual
    nature of the encounter and the complete lack of any factors suggesting
    compliance with the officers' requests was required, the district court found a
    consensual encounter from start to finish, until the arrest. Thus, no Fourth
    Amendment interest was implicated. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434
    (1991). The district court's factual findings are supported by the evidence and
    its legal conclusion is unassailably correct.

    Once Mr. Brooks consented to the officers' search of his suitcase for drugs, the
    officers did not exceed the scope of consent when they also searched containers
    within his luggage. See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250-51; United States
    v. Harfst, No. 95-2164, 1996 WL 131501, at ---4-5 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 1996)
    (unpublished order and judgment); United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 956 (3d
    Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995). "[W]hen one gives general
    permission to search for drugs in a confined area, that permission extends any
    items within that area that a reasonable person would believe to contain drugs."
    Kim, 27 F.3d at 956.

    Mr. Brooks also claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's
    verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we
    find that a reasonable jury could have found Mr. Brooks guilty beyond a
    reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The evidence
    adduced at trial established that Mr. Brooks hid a large quantity of PCP in his
    suitcase, from which a jury could conclude that he knowingly possessed PCP.

    See United States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 913, 918 (10th Cir.1995). The large
    quantity of PCP--enough to produce over 5,000 PCP-laced cigarettes--also
    supported the inference that Mr. Brooks intended to distribute it. See id.
    6

    AFFIRMED. Defense counsel's request to withdraw is DENIED.

    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance
    in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R.
    34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument

    You might also like