United States v. Ray Anthony Pace
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Gil (Wis. Ct. App. 1997)
- United States v. Pedro Jolio Prandy-Binett (D.C. Cir. 1993)
- Commonwealth v. Marconi (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)
- El Pueblo De Puerto Rico v. Luis Torres Cardona (P.R. Cir. 2026)
- Pueblo v. Báez López (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2013)
- Pueblo v. Báez López (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2013)
- State v. Wonders (Kan. Ct. App. 1996)
- United States v. Velarde (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1993)
- United States v. Diaz-Garcia (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1992)
- United States v. Prandy-Binnet (District Court, District of Columbia 1991)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellant Anthony Ray Pace, found guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a consensual pat-down search 709 F.Supp. 948. We affirm.
I
On January 9, 1988, at approximately 11:25 p.m., Special Agent Marcello of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and Detectives Gossett and May of the Los Angeles Police Department were conducting surveillance for drug couriers at Los Angeles International Airport. They noticed Pace and decided to question him. The agents identified themselves and told Pace they would like to talk to him for a few minutes but he was free to leave. The agents informed Pace they were looking for narcotics and large sums of cash. Pace consented to a search of his carry-on bag, in which nothing was found. Pace then consented to a pat-down of his outer garments. Gossett felt two hard brick-like objects on Pace’s back and Marcello lifted up Pace’s ski parka and sweater and uncovered two bricks of what turned out to be cocaine.
Pace was arrested and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal. He now moves to suppress evidence of the cocaine as discovered through an illegal search.
II
Appellant concedes he consented to a pat-down to determine whether he was carrying narcotics. Recovery of the cocaine was “within the scope of the initial consent.” United States v. Sierra-Hernandez, 581 F.2d 760, 764 (9th Cir. 1978). The drug agents conducted a reasonable pat-down search with the defendant’s consent, and were entitled to remove the bulky objects which they reasonably suspected from the pat-down to be bricks of cocaine.
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.