Court Opinion

ID: 998847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:17:00.43295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:33.299500
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4675

THOMAS M. TULLY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CR-98-120-A)

Submitted: May 25, 1999

Decided: June 3, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Stanley Powell, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Thomas J. Krysa, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Tully appeals his conviction for possession with intent
to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(1994). Tully's sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred
in denying his motion to suppress the crack cocaine an officer found
in a flashlight on Tully's person during a search to determine if he
was armed. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find that the district court did not err in finding that the officer
had a reasonable suspicion that the flashlight may have concealed a
weapon. See United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 973 (4th Cir.
1992). The testimony at the hearing showed that Tully was acting in
an unusual manner ducking his head in and out of view while seated
in the vehicle, the flashlight found in Tully's back pants pocket was
unusually light, the flashlight did not turn on, Tully did not know if
the flashlight contained batteries, and in the officer's experience he
had seen weapons concealed in containers of this sort. We find that
under the objectively suspicious circumstances, an officer may have
believed his safety was in jeopardy, and therefore the crack cocaine
found in the flashlight was admissible. See United States v. Sakyi, 160
F.3d 164, 169-70 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Baker, 78 F.3d 135,
137 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 66 U.S.L.W. 3455 (U.S. Jan. 12,
1998) (No. 97-912).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2