Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02985/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02985-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrell Haywood
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______

No. 15-2985

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

TERRELL HAYWOOD,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. No. 2-14-cr-00462-001)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 3, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 7, 2016)

____________

OPINION

____________

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2016
2

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Terrell Haywood appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to 

suppress a firearm that he contends was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment 

rights. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

I.

We write solely for the parties and therefore recite only the facts that are necessary 

to our disposition.

At 1:00 p.m. on April 26, 2014, three police officers — Detective Hugo Ribeiro

and Detective Sergeant Anthony DeMattia of the New Jersey State Police, and Essex 

County Detective Sergeant Brian Ruane — were patrolling a Newark, New Jersey

neighborhood1in an unmarked truck. Detective Ribeiro was sitting in the rear passenger 

side of the vehicle, Detective DeMattia in the front passenger side, and Detective Ruane 

in the driver’s seat. The truck was heading north on Hobson Street; as it passed through 

the intersection with Nye Avenue, Detective Ribeiro looked left and saw Haywood 

walking on the sidewalk east on Nye, toward the truck. Detective Ribeiro could clearly 

see the front of Haywood’s body, who at this point was about “ten to twelve feet” away. 

Appendix (“App.”) 81. Detective Ribeiro testified that Haywood was wearing “gray 

sweatpants, like a gray hooded shirt, and a black vest over the gray hooded shirt.” App. 

 

1 The police were patrolling this particular neighborhood as part of the TIDE 

program, a state initiative designed to increase police presence in areas afflicted with high 

incidents of violent crime.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2016
3

77. Detective Ribeiro claims that Haywood’s vest was open2and that he could see a 

bulge in the right jacket pocket that he thought may be a handgun. As the truck drove 

through the intersection, Detective Ribeiro said to the others “something to the effect” of: 

“‘I think he has a gun.’ . . . ‘Can we stop him?’” App. 79.

The truck then reversed back through the intersection, at which point Haywood 

was crossing the street. Haywood turned to look at the truck, and Detective Ribeiro 

noticed “what look[ed] to be a handle of a firearm” where he had seen the bulge, though 

he did not tell the other officers his observation. App. 79-80. Haywood continued to 

walk east on Nye, and the truck turned to pull up beside him.

Detective Ribeiro exited the rear passenger side of the vehicle and, as the other 

officers also exited, announced that they were police and instructed Haywood to put his 

hands up. None of the officers had their weapons drawn. Haywood immediately 

complied, raising his hands and dropping a water bottle that he had been carrying. 

Detective DeMattia took both of Haywood’s hands and put Haywood’s back against the 

truck, and then released a hand, according to Detective Ribeiro, to give Detective Ribeiro

access to Haywood. Detective Ribeiro claims that he immediately reached into 

Haywood’s right pocket and retrieved a handgun. Haywood contends that the evidence 

shows that Detectives DeMattia and Ribeiro frisked Haywood’s waist area as if they did 

not know that there was anything in his pockets. After announcing that he had found a 

 

2 At the suppression hearing, Detective DeMattia also testified that Haywood’s 

vest was open. According to Haywood, his vest was closed.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2016
4

gun, Detective Ribeiro disarmed the weapon while Detectives DeMattia and Ruane 

tackled Haywood to the ground and arrested him.

A grand jury charged Haywood with one count of possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Haywood filed a motion to 

suppress all evidence seized by the police, alleging that he was subjected to an 

unconstitutional stop and frisk. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing on 

Haywood’s motion on October 14, 2014, and on October 17, denied the motion in a 

ruling from the bench. App. 183-92. Haywood eventually pleaded guilty on the 

condition that he would be able to appeal the Court’s decision.3 On August 6, 2015, the 

Court sentenced Haywood to 92 months of imprisonment followed by three years of 

supervised release.

At the hearing, Detectives Ribeiro and DeMattia testified, and the parties 

introduced into evidence the handgun, Haywood’s clothing, satellite images of Hobson 

Street and Nye Avenue, the police report, and a video recording taken from a security 

camera showing the arrest. The District Court watched the video “very closely” and 

found that it corroborated the officers’ testimony.

4

 App. 188. Considering the officers’ 

“demeanor on the stand; forthrightness . . . ; [and] accuracy to which [they] recollect[ed] 

 

3 Haywood initially entered an unconditional guilty plea after the District Court’s 

decision on the suppression motion, but later withdrew his plea and entered a new 

conditional plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2).

4 Specifically, the Court found that the video shows Haywood’s back and thus 

does not, as Haywood argues, show whether Haywood’s vest was open or closed. The 

Court also found the video to show that Detective Ribeiro immediately reached for 

Haywood’s right pocket to retrieve the gun.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/07/2016
5

the information that [they] testified to,” the Court found the officers to be credible 

witnesses, noting that there were no material inconsistencies between the officers’ 

testimony and the video. App. 189-90. Finally, the Court found that the basis for the 

stop was supported by the fact that the officers did not turn to pull alongside Haywood 

until after Detective Ribeiro was able to see Haywood and observe the bulge in his 

pocket.

II.5

“A brief, investigatory stop is valid under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), ‘when 

the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.’” United 

States v. Gatlin, 613 F.3d 374, 378 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 

119, 123 (2000)). Once a stop occurs, the officer may conduct “a reasonable search for 

weapons” if he has “reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous 

individual.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. If either the stop or the search is unreasonable, any 

evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed. Gatlin, 613 F.3d at 378 (citing United 

States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 442, 447 (3d Cir. 2010)).

When reviewing a district court’s order denying a motion to suppress, we review 

findings of fact for clear error but exercise plenary review over legal determinations. 

United States v. Lewis, 672 F.3d 232, 236-37 (3d Cir. 2012). “A finding is clearly 

erroneous when although there is evidence to support it” we are “left with the definite 

 

5 The District Court had original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial of Haywood’s 

motion to suppress under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/07/2016
6

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Price, 558 F.3d 

270, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Pelullo, 173 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir. 

1999)). In other words, if the district court’s finding is “plausible in light of the record 

viewed in its entirety,” we will not reverse it even if we “would have weighed the 

evidence differently.” Id. (citation omitted). On review, we construe the record in the 

light most favorable to the government. United States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251, 255 (3d 

Cir. 2002). 

Haywood challenges only the District Court’s factual findings at the evidentiary 

hearing. His challenge is predicated on five arguments. First, he was wearing a heavy 

sweatshirt on the day of his arrest — not a lightweight shirt as Detective Ribeiro testified 

— rendering it unlikely that Detective Ribeiro could have seen a bulge through the thick 

material. Second, the video supports Haywood’s contention that his vest was closed, 

which would have obstructed Detective Ribeiro’s ability to see the gun. Third, because 

of the truck’s position relative to Haywood, Detective Ribeiro could not have had a view 

of Haywood’s right side when he claims to have seen the handle protruding from 

Haywood’s pocket. Fourth, contrary to the officer’s testimony, the video shows that 

Detective Ribeiro frisked Haywood’s midsection instead of reaching immediately for the 

right pocket. Fifth, the video shows that the officers looked “surprised” when they 

discovered Haywood’s gun, indicating that they did not expect to find a weapon. 

Haywood contends that these inconsistencies compromise the testifying officers’

credibility and undermine their claim that they stopped Haywood because Detective 

Ribeiro suspected that Haywood had a gun.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/07/2016
7

At best, Haywood posits interpretations of the evidence that are plausible 

alternatives to those offered by the government and found by the District Court. For 

example, the video does not clearly show whether Haywood’s vest was open or closed, or 

whether Detective Ribeiro first frisked Haywood’s midsection instead of reaching 

directly for Haywood’s right pocket. But Haywood does not point to evidence that leaves 

us with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Price, 558 

F.3d at 277. For instance, regardless of whether the officers arguably appear “surprised” 

by the discovery of the gun, such behavior is consistent with the officers’ testimony that 

Detective Ribeiro did not tell his colleagues when he spotted the gun handle protruding 

from Haywood’s pocket. Additionally, we have no basis on which to conclude that the 

heavier fabric of Haywood’s sweatshirt would have concealed the gun from Detective’s 

Ribeiro’s view, and any mistake in the officers’ description of Haywood’s clothing does 

not disturb the deference we owe to the District Court’s finding that the officers’ 

testimony was otherwise forthright and credible. Especially when construing the record 

in the light most favorable to the government, none of Haywood’s theories entails a 

conclusion that the District Court committed clear error.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Case: 15-2985 Document: 003112456215 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/07/2016