UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
decided: May 2, 1975.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
MOZELLE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Edward R. Neaher, Judge, convicting appellant of possessing, with intent to distribute, 250 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At issue is the validity of the airport search of appellant which resulted in the discovery of heroin contained in a carry-on bag. Held, that the search was valid on the grounds of consent.
Anderson, Mansfield and Oakes, Circuit Judges.
Author: Per Curiam
The sole issue in this case is the validity of an airport search of appellant's carry-on luggage, a flight bag. Appellant contends that the search was unconsented to, unreasonable and excessive in its scope. Further, he argues that prior to initiating the search, airport authorities should have advised him of his option to leave the airport.
On the basis of United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 501, 504 (2d Cir. 1974) (Oakes, J., concurring), we hold that there was implied consent to search the carry-on baggage by virtue of the fact that baggage which one does not want to have searched may be consigned to the baggage compartment. Here as in Edwards, supra, there was also evidence that the appellant consented expressly to that search.
With respect to the scope of the search and, in effect, to the bounds of any implied consent, appellant maintains that any search of his belongings should have been limited to a search for weapons and should therefore have excluded two plastic bags containing a white powder later identified as heroin. But the search here uncovered the two plastic bags at the same time that a one-pound canister with a metal top and bottom was found. The canister could quite reasonably have been thought to be an explosive device, with the two plastic bags containing a necessary ingredient therefor. Under the circumstances, the search was therefore valid, and the judgment is affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.