UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JUAN F. TORRES, APPELLANT

8th Cir. | 1990-12-21
No. 90-2355WM
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
921 F.2d 196 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the inspection of the defendant's mouth was a minor intrusion not implicating Fourth Amendment rights, and that career offender guidelines do not violate due process.


Facts & Procedural History

Police arrested Torres during a drug raid and, after noticing his mumbled speech, asked him to open his mouth, revealing baggies of crack cocaine. Tor…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Juan F. Torres appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack cocaine and his guidelines sentence as a career offender. Kansas City police officers arrested Torres during a drug raid. After noticing Torres’s mumbled speech, one of the officers asked Torres to open his mouth and raise his tongue. Torres complied, revealing two small baggies of crack cocaine. Torres contends the district court committed error in refusing to suppress the baggies of crack found in his mouth. We disagree. We believe the unforced inspection of Torres’s mouth was a minor intrusion that did not implicate Torres’s fourth amendment rights. See United States v. Weir, 657 F. 2d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Caldera, 421 F. 2d 152, 153 (9th Cir.1970).

Torres also contends the career offender guidelines violate due process because “the use of a mechanical formula” deprived him of a judge’s sentencing discretion. Torres’s argument, however, is foreclosed by this court’s contrary holding in United States v. Green, 902 F. 2d 1311, 1313 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 353, 112 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990).

Finally, Torres contends the district court committed error in refusing his request for a downward departure on the ground his codefendant received a lesser sentence than his own. Again, we disagree. Contrary to Torres’s argument, a district court may not depart from the guidelines based solely on a codefendant’s sentence. See United States v. Parker, 912 F. 2d 156, 158 (6th Cir.1990). Thus, the district court correctly rejected Torres’s request for a downward departure.

Torres’s convictions and sentence are affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw