Gwyn Duus

Criminal Procedure
Case Brief #2

1. Title: U.S. v. Rodney, 956 F.2d 295 (CADC 1992)

2. Procedural Facts: Rodney was convicted on his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, after the
court denied his motion to suppress. Rodney appealed.

3. Substantive Facts: Dylan Rodney was stopped by a detective who asked if Rodney would talk
to him, and Rodney agreed. When asked if he was carrying drugs in his travel bag, he said no,
and the detective obtained permission to search the bag. He did not find anything in the bag. The
detective then asked Rodney if he was carrying drugs on his person, and Rodney said no.
Rodney said the detective could search his person and the detective felt small, rock-like objects
in the crotch area. Rodney claimed that it was him, but the detective placed Rodney under arrest,
and at the station he unzipped Rodney's pants. He found a plastic bag containing a rock-like
substance that was cocaine base. Rodney was charged with possession and intent to distribute.

4. Issue: Did Rodney consent to a search of his crotch when he told the officer he could do a
body search?

5. Procedural Holding: The Court of Appeals panel affirmed (2-1) and held that: the Dist. Ct.
committed no clear error in finding consent to the search voluntary, defendant's general consent
to the search authorized the Terry Frisk (including crotch area), and officer had probable cause to
make warrantless search of Rodney’s person.

6. Substantive Holding: Yes, Rodney consented to a search of his crotch when he consented to a
search of his body. He did not specify that he did not want his crotch searched.

7. Reasoning/Rationale: Rodney had consented to a body search for drugs, which included his
crotch area. He did not specify that he did not want his crotch searched. And many times, law
enforcement officers find that drugs are commonly hidden in the crotch area.