United States of America v. Amber Marie Bear

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice for the**
Supreme Court (Ret.), sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AMBER MARIE BEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30319
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00056-SEH-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2011
Missoula, Montana
Before: O’CONNOR, Associate Justice, REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit**
Judges.
Amber Bear appeals from her convictions for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846
and § 846(a)(1) after entry of a conditional guilty plea. We affirm. Because the
parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.
FILED
OCT 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

At oral argument, defense counsel asserted that she was also raising issues1
pertaining to the constitutionality of the search of Amber’s co-defendant’s purse at
the initial traffic stop. However, she did not distinctly raise and argue that issue on
appeal, and it is therefore waived. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
-2-
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court erred in
denying Bear’s motion to suppress evidence seized from a post-arrest search at a
tribal detention facility. She was searched after an officer observed her on a1
closed-circuit monitor twice reaching into her co-defendant’s bra and pulling an
object out. She was taken by female officers to a private space, where she was
asked to remove her clothes, and then squat and cough. At that point, a small,
white packet dropped from her body. Later testing demonstrated that the packet
contained methamphetamine. A subsequent body cavity search produced a green,
leafy substance, which did not form the basis of the prosecution.
Reasonable suspicion justifies the use of visual body cavity searches. Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559-60 (1979). Bear was arrested for a drug offense and
was observed to take a concealed packet from a co-defendant at the detention
center. Thus, the visual body cavity search was justified by reasonable suspicion.
The discovery of the contraband during the visual body cavity search justified the
subsequent digital body cavity search.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --