Case ID: f-appx_454/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Amber Marie BEAR, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-30319.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 1, 2011.
    Filed Oct. 14, 2011.
    
      Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., USGF— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    E. June Lord, Esquire, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’CONNOR, Associate Justice, REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice for the Supreme Court (Ret.), sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amber Bear appeals from her convictions for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 846(a)(1) after entry of a conditional guilty plea. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Bear’s motion to suppress evidence seized from a post-arrest search at a tribal detention facility. She was searched after an officer observed her on a closed-circuit monitor twice reaching into her co-defendant’s bra and pulling an object out. She was taken by female officers to a private space, where she was asked to remove her clothes, and then squat and cough. At that point, a small, white packet dropped from her body. Later testing demonstrated that the packet contained methamphetamine. A subsequent body cavity search produced a green, leafy substance, which did not form the basis of the prosecution.

Reasonable suspicion justifies the use of visual body cavity searches. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559-60, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Bear was arrested for a drug offense and was observed to take a concealed packet from a co-defendant at the detention center. Thus, the visual body cavity search was justified by reasonable suspicion. The discovery of the contraband during the visual body cavity search justified the subsequent digital body cavity search.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . At oral argument, defense counsel asserted that she was also raising issues pertaining to the constitutionality of the search of Amber’s co-defendant’s purse at the initial traffic stop. However, she did not distinctly raise and argue that issue on appeal, and it is therefore waived. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).