UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 96-4351

CARLOS MANUEL FERNANDEZ-ROQUE,

a/k/a Carlos Marecelia Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-95-43)

Submitted: January 31, 1997

Decided: February 14, 1997

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Rion Brady, Archdale, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Fernandez-Roque pled guilty to possession with the intent

to distribute cocaine;1 however, he appeals the district court's order

denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found in a BMW in his

possession at a Red Roof Inn in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Fernandez-Roque contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were

violated when a police officer answered the phone in his motel room

during a consensual search conducted prior to the search of the BMW.

After a complete review of the district court's decision to deny

Fernandez-Roque's motion to suppress,2 we find no reversible error

and affirm the district court's order.

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches

protects only those areas in which a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.3 While a participant in a conversation has legitimate

expectations of privacy concerning telephonic transmissions,4

Fernandez-Roque did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in

this phone call because the only participants in the telephone conversation were the police officer and the caller.5 Fernandez-Roque cannot

claim an expectation of privacy in the words uttered by another

because Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted.6 Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not violated

by a police officer, who was lawfully in the motel room, answering

the phone and taking the message, "This is Jorge; tell him I'm on the

way."7

_________________________________________________________________

1 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994).

2 United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 540 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 64

U.S.L.W. 3807 (U.S. June 3, 1996) (No. 95-8891).

3 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

4 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 352 (1967).

5 See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-06 (1980).

6 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978).

7 United States v. Passarella, 788 F.2d 377, 379-80 (6th Cir. 1986);

United States v. Fuller, 441 F.2d 755, 760 (4th Cir. 1971).

 2
Accordingly, we find that the search and seizure of the cocaine in

this matter was lawful and in accordance with the Constitution. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3