COLLIN LEE QUICK, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 89-7728

   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 dismissing an indictment on the ground that a parole search of
his residence was invalid.

   On January 29, 1988, petitioner was indicted by a federal grand
jury sitting in the Central District of California.  He was charged
with three counts of weapons violations, three counts of narcotic
violations, and one count of possession of an implement for making
false documents.  Petitioner moved to suppress evidence obtained from
his residence on November 5, 1987, in a state parole search.  The
district court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment on the
ground that petitioner was not validly on parole at the time of the
search.  Pet. App. A1.

   The court of appeals reversed.  Pet. App. B1-B4.  The court
concluded that petitioner was validly on parole, since petitioner's
parole resulted from his early release from prison, before the
expiration of the period of his original custodial sentence.  The
court remanded the case for the district court to determine if the
parole search was justified by reasonable suspicion.

   Petitioner contends (Pet. 6-9) that the court of appeals erred both
in interpreting the California Penal Code and in resolving the case on
an issue neither raised by the parties nor decided by the district
court.  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
and had not dismissed the indictment.  If the district court once
again suppresses the evidence, or if it admits the evidence and
petitioner is acquitted following a trial on the merits, petitioner's
present claim will be mooted.  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

   JULY 1990

   /*/ 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.