Hartnett

United States v. Hartnett

Good Law
76 F. App'x 206
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 29, 2003No. 02-10601; D.C. No. CR-01-00360-MMCCalifornia372 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Shawn Hartnett pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute MDMA (“ecstasy”) under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846 and received a 30-month sentence. He conditioned his plea on retaining his right to this appeal. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the roughly 20,000 tablets of ecstasy found in the luggage he carried in his private, First Class cabin on an Amtrak train.

Hartnett contends that the district court erred in finding that he consented to the officer’s sniffing his suitcase, which resulted in the detection of the door of marijuana from a prior use of the luggage. That discovery established probable cause to obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.

Whether an encounter is consensual depends upon the totality of the circumstances. See U.S. v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 , 122 S.Ct. 2105 , 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002). The applicable test for encounters like this, that take place on means of commercial transportation, is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officer’s request to search or to otherwise terminate the encounter. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 419, 426 , 111 S.Ct. 2376 , 115…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.