UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                         No. 96-4351
CARLOS MANUEL FERNANDEZ-ROQUE,
a/k/a Carlos Marecelia Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-95-43)

Submitted: January 31, 1997

Decided: February 14, 1997

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Rion Brady, Archdale, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Hol-
ton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Fernandez-Roque pled guilty to possession with the intent
to distribute cocaine;1 however, he appeals the district court's order
denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found in a BMW in his
possession at a Red Roof Inn in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Fernandez-Roque contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were
violated when a police officer answered the phone in his motel room
during a consensual search conducted prior to the search of the BMW.
After a complete review of the district court's decision to deny
Fernandez-Roque's motion to suppress,2 we find no reversible error
and affirm the district court's order.

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches
protects only those areas in which a person has a legitimate expecta-
tion of privacy.3 While a participant in a conversation has legitimate
expectations of privacy concerning telephonic transmissions,4
Fernandez-Roque did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in
this phone call because the only participants in the telephone conver-
sation were the police officer and the caller.5 Fernandez-Roque cannot
claim an expectation of privacy in the words uttered by another
because Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicari-
ously asserted.6 Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not violated
by a police officer, who was lawfully in the motel room, answering
the phone and taking the message, "This is Jorge; tell him I'm on the
way."7
_________________________________________________________________
1 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994).

2 United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 540 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 64
U.S.L.W. 3807 (U.S. June 3, 1996) (No. 95-8891).

3 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).
4 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 352 (1967).
5 See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-06 (1980).

6 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978).
7 United States v. Passarella, 788 F.2d 377, 379-80 (6th Cir. 1986);
United States v. Fuller, 441 F.2d 755, 760 (4th Cir. 1971).

                    2
Accordingly, we find that the search and seizure of the cocaine in
this matter was lawful and in accordance with the Constitution. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
