BERNICE M. MILLER, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-8100

   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 Fourth Circuit

   Memorandum For The United States In Opposition

   Petitioner contends that the court of appeals erred in reversing an
order suppressing evidence on the ground that there was insufficient
probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

   1. Petitioner was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Middle
District of North Carolina.  She was charged with possession of heroin
with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a).  Prior
to trial, petitioner sought to suppress as evidence heroin seized by a
law enforcement officer from a plastic-wrapped box in her possession.
The officer seized the box incident to petitioner's arrest at a bus
station.

   The district court suppressed the heroin on the ground that the
officer lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner.  The court ruled
that when an officer is using an informant's tip to support a finding
of probable cause, he must conduct an independent investigation to
corroborate the information supplied by the informant.  Pet. App. 4-5.

   The court of appeals reversed.  The court found that the
circumstances and information before the officer at the time he
arrested petitioner were almost identical to those before the
arresting officer in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959).
The court also ruled that there is no requirement that police officers
acting on an informant's tip must corroborate that tip in some
specific way such as by conducting an independent investigation.  The
court concluded that, in light of all the information available to the
officer, the tip was substantially corroborated by his observations
and probable cause was established for the arrest of petitioner.  Pet.
App. 1-11.

   2. Petitioner contends (Pet. 6-11) that the court of appeals
overlooked important facts that distinguish this case from Draper.
Petitioner also contends (Pet. 11-13) that no exigent circumstances
existed that justified searching the plastic-wrapped box incident to
her arrest.  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.  /*/

                              CONCLUSION

   It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition for a writ
of certiorari should be denied.

   Respectfully submitted.

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   JUNE 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.