Court Opinion

ID: 2965071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:51.753383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:23.681503
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1855

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    DANIEL LEWIS,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            James  L. Sultan, Charles  W. Rankin and Rankin  & Sultan on brief
            ________________  __________________     ________________
        for appellant.
            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            __________________                             ___________________
        and Gerard  B. Sullivan, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on brief
            ___________________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 26, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we  conclude that  the pat-frisk  of defendant  was a

            permissible  search and that  district court correctly denied

            suppression of  the evidence discovered  during that  search.

            We  reach  this   conclusion  essentially  for   the  reasons

            expressed by the  district court in its order dated September

            9, 1996.   We  thus reject defendant's appellate  contentions

            that the officers  lacked a reasonable suspicion  grounded in

            specific and articulable facts to justify the search and that

            the  officer conducting the search personally did not possess

            such a reasonable suspicion.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-