STEVEN H. ELLIOTT, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-5528

   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 Ninth Circuit

   Memorandum For The United States In Opposition

   Petitioner contends that the court of appeals erred in reversing an
order suppressing cocaine and marijuana seized under a search warrant.

   1. Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the District
of Alaska.  He was charged with maintaining a place for the
manufacture, distribution, and use of cocaine and marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 856;  and with distributing marijuana within
1,000 feet of an elementary school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 845a.
Petitioner moved to suppress as evidence marijuana and cocaine that
had been seized from the main room of his apartment and marijuana
plants that were growing in a storeroom attached to his apartment.
The evidence was seized pursuant to a warrant issued on the basis of
testimony by an informant who stated that she had seen cocaine and
marijuana in petitioner's house on the date the warrant was issued.
On December 12, 1988, the district court granted the motion to
suppress on the ground that the search warrant was not supported by
probable cause.  Pet. App. 3A.

   The court of appeals reversed.  Pet. App. 1A-9A.  The court held
that the testimony of the informant had established probable cause to
issue the search warrant, that the motivations of the informant did
not detract from the informant's eyewitness testimony, and that the
officers had not exceeded the scope of the warrant in searching the
storeroom.

   2. Petitioner contends (Pet. 1-19) that the search warrant was
based on false testimony of a police officer, that there was no
probable cause for the search of the apartment, and that the informant
testified falsely in order to incriminate him.  Petitioner also
contends that the informant placed the cocaine in the apartment prior
to reporting to the police.  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 he would have occupied if the district court had denied his
motion to suppress.  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 the final judgment against him.
Accordingly, review 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

   SEPTEMBER 1990

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