Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04068/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Edward Tolbert
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FI LED 

Uttlu'tl Stllfts Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirr.uit 

APR -:B 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

JACK EDWARD TOLBERT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 89-4068 

(D.C. No. CR88-120G} 

(D. Utah} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HO~LOW~Y, Chief ~~dge, TACHA, Circuit Judge, and VAN 

BEBBER, D1str1ct Judge. 

Defendant Jack Tolbert appeals his conviction for possession 

of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 84l(a}(l), on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting 

into evidence one-half pound of· cocaine base found inside 

Tolbert's suitcase. Tolbert contends that the police in seizing 

the cocaine violated his fourth amendment rights, U.S. Const. 

amend. IV, and thus the trial court should have granted his 

pretrial motion to suppress. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-4068 Document: 01019970775 Date Filed: 04/03/1990 Page: 1 
At the pretrial hearing on Tolbert's motion to suppress the 

cocaine evidence, Tolbert argued that the police unlawfully 

detained him for questioning in the Salt Lake City, Utah airport 

and that this unlawful detention ultimately led to the seizure of 

the suitcase containing the cocaine in Atlanta, Georgia. The 

trial court found that the Salt Lak~ City police had an adequate 

basis under Terry~ Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1986), to detain and 

question Tolbert in a snack bar of the Salt Lake City airport, and 

that the questioning was done in a noncoercive manner. The trial 

court further found that Tolbert had voluntarily consented to a 

search of his suitcase by Atlanta authorities when he agreed to 

the search and gave his baggage claim check number to the Salt 

Lake City Police, and that Tolbert's description of his luggage as 

a black garment bag was merely an attempt to confuse the police, 

not a withdrawal or limitation of his consent to search. Finally, 

the trial court found that Tolbert had voluntarily abandoned his 

suitcase when he attempted to exit at the Dallas-Fort Worth 

airport without having in his possession his ticket to Atlanta or 

his baggage claim check, thereby forfeiting any expectation of 

privacy that he might have had in the suitcase. Based on these 

findings of fact, the trial court denied Tolbert's motion to 

suppress the evidence of cocaine. 

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, 

we must accept the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly 

erroneous. United States v. Jimenez, 864 F.2d 686, 688 (10th Cir. 

1988). Where the government prevails, we view the evidence at the 

suppression in the light most favorable to the government. Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4068 Document: 01019970775 Date Filed: 04/03/1990 Page: 2 
{ 

Although Tolbert's detention in a snack bar of the Salt Lake City 

airport probably was based upon a reasonable suspicion supported 

by articulable facts, see United States~ Bell, 892 F.2d 959, 

966-968 (10th Cir. 1990), even if the Terry stop was unlawful, 

Tolbert's voluntary consent to the search of his suitcase is an 

intervening act rendering the evidence of cocaine found inside the 

suitcase admissible. See United States~ Carson, 793 F.2d 1141, 

1149-50 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 914 (1986). The trial 

court correctly applied our requirements for a showing of 

voluntary consent, id. at 1150, and its findings that Tolbert 

consented to the search and that the search was not beyond the 

scope of consent are not clearly erroneous. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-4068 Document: 01019970775 Date Filed: 04/03/1990 Page: 3