GEORGE RODGERS, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-7821

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1990

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit

   Memorandum For The United States In Opposition

   Petitioner contends that the court of appeals erred in reversing an
order suppressing as evidence two handguns seized from his home after
his arrest.

   1. On April 5, 1989, petitioner was indicted by a grand jury
sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama.  He was charged with possession of two firearms during a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1);
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it, in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1);  and various other controlled substances
offenses.  He pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge.  With the
exception of the firearms charge, all of the other charges were
dismissed on motion of the government.

   Petitioner sought to suppress as evidence two handguns that police
officers seized from his house trailer after his arrest.  The officers
who seized the guns arrested petitioner under a warrant after he
walked out of the trailer, leaving the front door open.  When one of
the arresting officers approached the trailer to close the door, he
noticed the guns on a couch inside the trailer, where petitioner had
been sitting.  The officer entered the trailer and seized the guns
because he knew that petitioner was a convicted felon who was not
allowed to possess firearms.

   The district court suppressed the guns as evidence on the ground
that it was unlawful for the officer to enter the trailer to seize the
guns after petitioner was arrested outside.  Pet. App. 6-11.  The
court of appeals reversed.  Pet. App. 1-5.  The court of appeals held
that the warrantless entry into petitioner's trailer was lawful under
the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the
Fourth Amendment.  The court said that the exigent circumstances
exception was applicable because the police knew there was at least
one other person in the trailer, that the guns could easily have been
hidden, and that the people in the trailer were aware of petitioner's
arrest.

   2. Petitioner contends (Pet. 12-17) that the exigent circumstances
exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable unless there is
direct proof of an actual and reasonable belief by the searching
officers that evidence is in imminent danger of being destroyed or
concealed and that there was no such proof in this case.  Whatever the
merits of petitioner's contentions, they are not ripe for review by
this Court.  The decision of the court of appeals places petitioner in
precisely the same position he would have occupied if the district
court had denied his motion to suppress the guns.  If petitioner is
acquitted following a trial on the merits, his contentions will be
moot.  If, on the other hand, petitioner is convicted and his
conviction is affirmed on appeal, he will then be able to present his
contentions to this Court, together with any other claims he may have,
in a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a final
judgment against him.  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

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   MAY 1991

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