033394P.pdf   10/03/2005  United States  v.  Keith A. Va Lerie
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-3394
   District of Nebraska   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, for the court en banc]
   Criminal case - criminal law. Police officer's action in taking
   defendant's checked luggage from a bus and to a room of the bus
   terminal in order to seek defendant's consent to search the luggage did
   not constitute a seizure because the removal did not: (1) delay
   defendant's travel or significantly impact defendant's freedom of
   movement, (2) delay the timely delivery of the checked luggage or (3)
   deprive the bus line of its custody of the checked luggage; further,
   defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the luggage. District
   court's order suppressing the seizure of drugs found in the luggage is
   reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Judge
   Wollman, concurring. Judge Colloton, joined by Judge McMillian, Judge
   Arnold, Judge Bye and Judge Smith, dissenting.
  
033394P.pdf   10/14/2004  United States  v.  Keith A. Va Lerie
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-3394
   District of Nebraska   
   Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in holding 
   defendant's garment bag was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes 
   when it was removed from a bus and brought to a room in the bus 
   terminal baggage area for the purpose of seeking the owner's consent to a 
   search; the district court did not clearly err when it found defendant's 
   consent to a search of the bag was not express and was not voluntarily 
   given. Judge Melloy, concurring in the result, but suggesting the 
   circuit should re-visit the issue of what constitutes a seizure in the context
   of a temporary removal and inspection of packages and luggage that have 
   been sent or checked with a common carrier. Judge Riley, dissenting. 
   [PUBLISHED] [McMillian, Author, with Riley and Melloy, Circuit Judges]