TUNYA REGINERA POITIER, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 87-694

   In the Supreme Court of the United States

   October Term, 1987

   On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

   Memorandum for the United States in Opposition

   Petitioner contends that the court of appeals erred in reversing an
order suppressing evidence that was obtained as a result of a seizure
of cocaine from petitioner at an airport.

   On January 22, 2986, petitioner was indicted by a federal grand
jury sitting in the Eastern District of Arkansas.  She was charged
with conspiring to distribute cocaine and to possess cocaine with
intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, and with
possessing cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21
U.S.C. (& Supp III) 841(b)(1)(B).  The cocaine was seized from her by
a police officer and Drug Enforcement Agents following an encounter at
the Little Rock, Arkansas, airport.  Petitioner moved to suppress both
the cocaine and the inculpatory statements she subsequently made to
law enforcement officers.

   The district court granted the motion.  The court concluded that
the officers' initial contact with petitioner constituted an
investigative Terry stop and that it was not supported by reasonable
suspicion.  See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The court found
that when the officers showed their identification and gestured to
petitioner to move to the waiting area, a person in petitioner's
position would not have felt free to leave without answering
questions.  The court also characterized the stop as an arrest from
its inception (Pet. App. 1-10).

   The court of appeals reversed (Pet. App. 11-27).  The court
concluded that the initial contact between the officers and petitioner
was consensual and involved no coercion or restraint of liberty.  The
court further found that, after petitioner and her companion gave
inconsistent information, the encounter turned into a Terry stop when
the agents told petitioner that they suspected her of carrying drugs
and gave her Miranda warnings.  Nonetheless, the court held, the
agents had sufficient grounds for the stop, and the stop was properly
limited in scope and duration (ibid.).

   Petitioner contends (Pet. 12-20) that she was detained without
reasonable suspicion after the officers encountered her at the
airport.  Whatever the merits of petitioner's contentions, they are
not presently ripe for review by this Court.  The court of appeals'
decision places petitioner in precisely the same position she would
have occupied if the district court had denied her motion to suppress.
 If petitioner is acquitted following a trial on the merits, her
contentions will be moot.  If, on the other hand, petitioner is
convicted and her conviction is affirmed on appeal, she will then be
able to present her contentions to this Court, together with any other
claims she may have, in a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
review of a final judgment against her.  Accordingly, review by this
Court of the court of appeals' decision would be premature at this
time.  /*/

   It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition for a writ
of certiorari should be denied.

   CHARLES FRIED

      Solicitor General

   DECEMBER 1987

   /*/ Because this case is interlocutory, we are not responding on
the merits to the questions presented by the petition.  We will file a
response on the merits if the Court requests.