United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Anthony Vanzetti Thomas, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Thompson Joseph Gabriel, Defendant-appellant, 856 F.2d 187 (4th Cir. 1988)

Defendants, Thompson J. Gabriel and Anthony V. Thomas, were convicted of various narcotic offenses after they were apprehended transporting cocaine and crack at Washington National Airport. They appeal contending that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when they were stopped and questioned at the airport prior to the seizure and search of a duffel bag which contained the illicit narcotics.¹  Defendant Thomas also contends that he was denied a fair trial by improper cross-examination of him when he testified in his own defense and by the receipt of evidence to rebut one of the answers he gave during the allegedly improper cross-examination.

We see no merit in any of these contentions, and we therefore affirm.

Defendants were accosted and questioned at the airport by DEA agents who had observed defendant Thomas and another, Rodney Gibson, waiting for defendant Gabriel for approximately 1 1/2 hours; had observed Gabriel alight from a flight, which originated in Miami, carrying a black duffel bag; and had observed Gabriel transfer the bag to Thomas. The record reflects that there was neither show of force nor show of authority during the questioning which elicited denials as to identity, conflicting versions of whether defendants were related and denials of ownership of the bag. While the agents did not advise defendants that they were free to decline to answer or to leave, the agents did nothing to restrain them. Nor did the agents employ duress, intimidation or, except for identifying themselves as DEA agents, a show of authority in dealing with defendants. Defendants were not arrested until after Gabriel, who had been advised of the identity and purpose of the agents, consented to a search of the bag which was found to contain cocaine and crack.

We agree with the district court that, prior to their actual arrest, defendants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. See United States v. Lehmann, 798 F.2d 692, 694 (4 Cir. 1986). Of course once the narcotics were discovered in the course of a consensual search, there was probable cause to arrest them.

When Thomas testified in his own behalf, he limited his testimony to giving his name, denying that he knew there was cocaine or crack in the duffel bag, stating that he had told the DEA agents the truth when they stopped him, and stating that at that time Gabriel was engaged to be married to Thomas' cousin.²  Over Thomas's objection, the district court permitted him to be cross-examined about whether he had been in the narcotics business with Gabriel, whether he was going to sell drugs in Charles Town, and whether he had ever had any dealings selling narcotics. Then, when Thomas answered these questions in the negative, the government was permitted to offer evidence that Thomas had sold a police officer cocaine on a recent occasion and that another police officer had apprehended Thomas for making a sale of drugs to a customer who was not a police officer.

We do not think that the cross-examination was improper. When Thomas testified as to his relationship through his cousin to Gabriel, he was seeking to show a benign reason why he was in the company of a drug courier or dealer without guilt on Thomas' part. It was therefore proper to interrogate him as to his knowledge of drug dealing by Gabriel and whether he, Thomas, ever engaged in drug dealing. Upon his negative answers to these questions, it was proper for the government to offer rebuttal evidence to attack his credibility and to demonstrate that his denials were false.

AFFIRMED.