May 20, 1992
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
____________________
No. 91-2322
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ODINA FANA ALMANZAR,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
Selya, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Joseph A. Bevilacqua, Jr. and William J. Murphy on brief for
___________________________ ___________________
appellant.
Lincoln C. Almond, United States Attorney, and Zechariah Chafee,
_________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant's actions, as observed by
__________
Detective Lennon, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that
defendant was engaged in drug trafficking. Consequently,
Detective Lennon was justified in stopping defendant and
briefly questioning him.
We agree with the district court that the stop was
a Terry investigative stop. The fact that, in the brief
_____
interlude between the stop and the alleged consent to search,
Officer Lennon did not return to defendant what turned out to
have been keys seized from defendant's closed fist does not
constitute a de facto arrest requiring Miranda warnings. The
__ _____ _______
situation was less coercive than that facing the defendant in
United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1987), where
_____________ _____
this court concluded defendant was not in custody and that,
hence, Miranda warnings were not required.
_______
Whether defendant understood Officer Lennon's
request to search defendant's apartment presented a classic
credibility issue, and we see no basis to disturb the
district court's resolution.
On the record before it, the district court was
justified in concluding that defendant understood the request
to search, that defendant consented to the request, and that
the surrounding circumstances were not coercive. We do not
find United States v. Gallego-Zapata, 630 F. Supp. 665 (D.
_____________ ______________
Mass. 1986), persuasive or controlling on the facts as
permissibly found by the district court. Moreover, unlike
the situation in Gallego-Zapata, where defendant was
______________
unlawfully detained at the time he assented to the search
request, the consent in the present case was given during the
course of a lawful Terry stop.
_____
Affirmed.
________
-3-