United States v. Ray Anthony Pace

893 F.2d 1103, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 298, 1990 WL 1284
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 12, 1990
Docket89-50184
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 893 F.2d 1103 (United States v. Ray Anthony Pace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ray Anthony Pace, 893 F.2d 1103, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 298, 1990 WL 1284 (9th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Anthony Ray Pace, found guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a consensual pat-down search 709 F.Supp. 948. We affirm.

I

On January 9, 1988, at approximately 11:25 p.m., Special Agent Marcello of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and Detectives Gossett and May of the Los Angeles Police Department were conducting surveillance for drug couriers at Los Angeles International Airport. They noticed Pace and decided to question him. The agents identified themselves and told Pace they would like to talk to him for a few minutes but he was free to leave. The agents informed Pace they were looking for narcotics and large sums of cash. Pace consented to a search of his carry-on bag, in which nothing was found. Pace then consented to a pat-down of his outer garments. Gossett felt two hard brick-like objects on Pace’s back and Marcello lifted up Pace’s ski parka and sweater and uncovered two bricks of what turned out to be cocaine.

Pace was arrested and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal. He now moves to suppress evidence of the cocaine as discovered through an illegal search.

II

Appellant concedes he consented to a pat-down to determine whether he was carrying narcotics. Recovery of the cocaine was “within the scope of the initial consent.” United States v. Sierra-Hernandez, 581 F.2d 760, 764 (9th Cir.1978). The drug agents conducted a reasonable pat-down search with the defendant’s consent, and were entitled to remove the bulky objects which they reasonably suspected from the pat-down to be bricks of cocaine.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

El Pueblo De Puerto Rico v. Luis Torres Cardona
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Puerto Rico/Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico, 2026
Pueblo v. Báez López
189 P.R. 918 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2013)
State v. Gil
561 N.W.2d 760 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1997)
State v. Wonders
929 P.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1996)
United States v. Velarde
823 F. Supp. 792 (D. Hawaii, 1993)
United States v. Pedro Jolio Prandy-Binett
995 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Diaz-Garcia
808 F. Supp. 784 (S.D. Florida, 1992)
United States v. Prandy-Binnet
774 F. Supp. 25 (District of Columbia, 1991)
Commonwealth v. Marconi
597 A.2d 616 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
893 F.2d 1103, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 298, 1990 WL 1284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ray-anthony-pace-ca9-1990.