Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CR-90-341-R. Manuel L. Real, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Before: Tang and Hall, Circuit Judges, Jensen,*fn** District Judge.
Johnnie Lee Jones ("Jones") appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and from conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The lower court sentenced Jones to 134 months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release.
First, the district court's findings that Jones consented to the search of his suitcase and that under the circumstances a reasonable person would have felt free to leave were not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Brown, 884 F.2d 1309, 1311 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1025 (1990). In addition, the pat-down search performed by Agent Wammack and the investigative detention of Jones' suitcase was Wammack had reasonable suspicion to believe Jones was transporting narcotics. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Finally, as Jones expressly disclaimed ownership of the suitcase, the district court's finding that Jones abandoned the suitcase was not clearly erroneous. Because Jones abandoned his suitcase, he lacks standing to complain of its search or seizure. See United States v. Jackson, 544 F.2d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1976). We hold that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Jones' direct and cross-examinations of Agent Wammack; defense counsel was attempting to use drug courier profile evidence as substantive evidence of Jones' innocence. See United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1991).
Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones' motion to strike testimony that alluded to evidence ruled inadmissible. Detective Christ testified that Wammack asked Jones if he had stopped him before. His testimony did not describe the faccts of the prior stop. See United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848, 850 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. granted, 112 S. Ct. 1261 (1992).