PATRICIA YOUNG, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-7414

   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 evidence.

   1. On June 22, 1989, petitioner was indicted by a federal grand
jury in the Southern District of Alabama.  She was charged with
conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1).  Before trial, petitioner
moved to suppress evidence that was seized from her purse after an
agent stopped her in her yard immediately before the execution of a
warrant to search her home for drug paraphernalia and records.  On
November 9, 1989, the district court suppressed the evidence seized
from petitioner's purse.  The court concluded that the purse was not
within the scope of the warrant, and that no exigent circumstances
validated the search.

   The court of appeals reversed.  Pet. App. 1a-6a.  The court held
that exigent circumstances justified the search of petitioner's purse.
 The court concluded that the agent had probable cause to believe that
petitioner was in the process of fleeing with contraband or evidence.
The court further concluded that the record does not indicate that a
second warrant could have been obtained in time to have prevented
petitioner's flight and the potential destruction of evidence.

   2. Petitioner contends (Pet. 6-11) that the exigent circumstances
exception to the warrant requirement is not applicable because the
government failed to establish probable cause to search and because it
had exclusive possession of the object that was searched.  Whatever
the merits of petitioner's contentions, they are not presently ripe
for review by this Court.  The court of appeals' decision places
petitioner in precisely the same position she would have occupied if
the district court had denied her motion to suppress.  If petitioner
is acquitted following a trial on the merits, her contentions will be
moot.  If, on the other hand, petitioner is convicted and her
conviction is affirmed on appeal, she will then be able to present her
contentions to this Court, together with any other claims she may
have, in a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a final
judgment against her.  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

   APRIL 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.