Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 25 2000
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 99-2113
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, the panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(c); 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
**
non-consensual encounter and that he did not give his voluntary consent to the
search. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291, and affirm.
I.
Looking at a list of Amtrak reservations, DEA Agent Kevin Small noticed
that Defendant had paid cash for a one-way ticket from Los Angeles to Detroit.
Small entered the trains sleeper car and turned on a hidden tape recorder. He
stood in the doorway of the room across the hall and knocked on Defendants
door. Task Force Officer Mark Barela stood in the vestibule. Defendant opened
the curtain and looked out. Small showed Defendant his credentials and
identified himself as a police officer. Small was wearing street clothes and his
gun was hidden in his pocket. Defendant opened the door to the room, which is
about 69 by 3 or 4, while Small remained in the doorway of the room across
the hall.
When Small asked Defendant if he could speak with him, Defendant gave
a furtive answer, yes, or, sure, something along those lines. Small discussed
Defendants travel plans with him. Small asked Defendant for some
identification, but Defendant said he had lost it or left it at the station. Small told
Defendant that he worked for the DEA and that they were having a problem with
people using trains to smuggle narcotics and contraband. Small asked Defendant
-2-
-4-
II.
Defendant raises two arguments on appeal: (1) that the encounter was not
consensual and (2) that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his room.
The government argues that Defendant has waived the first issuethat the
encounter was not consensualbecause he did not raise it in the district court.
See
United States v. Dewitt , 946 F.2d 1497, 1502 (10th Cir. 1991). The motion to
suppress asked the court to find that Defendant did not consent to the search,
although the testimony at the suppression hearing addressed both issues. We
believe that the issues are so closely related that we may consider both on appeal.
1
-5-
See
United States v. Harfst , No. 95-2164, 1996 WL 131501, at *2 (10th Cir. 1996)
(unpublished) (noting that an encounter was consensual in part because the officer
identified himself but did not display his gun). Although Defendants room was a
small, confined space, the officers both stood outside Defendants room, leaving
enough room for Defendant to exit.
private train compartment was consensual, in part because the officer stood in the
aisle and left the door open) (citing
(10th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Small was not required to tell Defendant that he had
-6-
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-7-