Third Circuit disposition — 012900mo-pdf

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2900
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
DAVID LEE HODGES
Appellant.
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00040E)
District Judge: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 30, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, ROTH, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 9, 2002 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Police officers in Erie, Pennsylvania received information from Texas
officials that two men, one of whom was named David Hodges, were suspected of
transporting marijuana from Texas to Erie in duffel bags, were staying at the Tallyho-tel
in Erie, and were driving a white Chevy Blazer. Acting upon this information, three
officers went to the Tallyho-tel, saw the Chevy Blazer, and confirmed that two men
fitting the description were registered guests. The three officers then knocked on the
hotel room door. When Hodges answered, one of the officers identified himself as an
FBI agent and asked if they could enter the room. Hodges said yes.
The officer told Hodges and his companion that he suspected that there was
a large quantity of drugs in the room. Hodges denied this. The officer then asked if he
and the other officers could look around the room. Hodges agreed. Upon inspection, the
officer found three large duffel bags, and asked to whom the bags belonged. Both men
denied ownership. The officer then asked if he could look in the bags. Hodges said yes.
In them the officers found marijuana and immediately arrested both men, charging them
with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
846. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the District Court erred by finding

-- 1 of 2 --

that Hodges’s consent to the search was voluntary.
Denying Hodges’s suppression motion the District Court found that, "[a]t
no time was there any force or threat of force employed. At no material time was there
any more than three police officers in the room. . . . The atmosphere. . . remained polite.
. . [and] the tone was courteous and conversational." The Court than held that "under all
the circumstances based upon the actions of the police officers at the exterior of the door
and in knocking on it and their specific requests to enter, [Hodges would have known]
that he was not required to permit that entry." The Court concluded that, under the
totality of the circumstances, Hodges’s consent to search was voluntary. The Court’s
findings were not erroneous, and it applied the law correctly. We will affirm.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --