Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03032/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03032-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Horton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3032

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern 

* District of Iowa.

Thomas Horton, also known as *

Martel Terrell Erving, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2010

Filed: July 26, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Thomas Horton appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion to suppress.

The district court found that police had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop

Horton and that police did not exceed the permissible scope of the stop. Horton

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

Northern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Jon S. Scoles, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802
entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a felon, reserving the

right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

I.

On the morning of February 5, 2008, a cab driver arrived at an apartment

complex in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to pick up a man later identified as Horton. After

waiting ten minutes in front of the complex, the cab driver approached the front door. 

Horton attempted to exit, but was unable to because the front door was broken. He

then went to a second story window and began to exit as if he were going to jump. 

The cab driver, however, persuaded Horton not to jump. Horton then returned to the

front door and pried it open with a knife.

 The cab driver drove Horton to the Cedar Rapids bus station. During the drive,

Horton talked of gang activity and asked if the cab driver was a police officer. After

dropping off Horton at the bus station, the cab driver called the Cedar Rapids Police

Department and relayed the incident. The cab driver described Horton as agitated,

nervous, and possibly armed with a knife. The cab driver also provided a physical

description of Horton as a black male, wearing a black coat and gray shirt and

carrying a backpack. 

Officers were dispatched to the bus station at 8:23 a.m. While driving by the

station, officers saw two black males standing near a bus-loading area. One of the

males, Horton, matched the cab driver’s physical description but was not carrying a

backpack. The officers made a U-turn into the bus-loading area of the station. Upon

seeing the approaching police car, Horton briskly walked away from the bus station

towards an apartment complex while continually checking to see if the officers were

following him. Horton quickly entered the complex, but almost immediately came

back outside after discovering the inner doorway to the apartment complex was

locked. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802
Police officers stopped Horton as he exited the complex and explained why they

were at the bus station. The officers conducted a pat-down search of Horton but did

not find the knife or any other weapon. Police then asked Horton for his name and

identification. Horton stated his name was Tony Smith and his birth date was July 5,

1984, but he was unable to provide identification. Officers next requested any piece

of paper displaying his identification information. Horton presented the officers with

his bus ticket, which was under the name Tony Williams. Horton stated that he uses

a fake name for traveling. 

Officers next asked Horton to sit in the back of the police car so they could

determine his identity, and Horton consented. Once Horton was seated in the police

car, officers asked Horton why he was in Cedar Rapids. Horton stated he was visiting

his aunt, whom he first referred to as Thelma Jackson but later in the conversation

referred to as Thelma Hudson. He also provided police with two additional birth

dates, July 4, 1986, and July 5, 1982. While Horton was in the back of the police car,

a woman claiming to be Horton’s girlfriend called his cell phone and told officers a

fourth possible birth date, June 12, 1982. 

Soon after, a second group of police officers arrived at the police car with an

abandoned black backpack they found at the bus station. Horton claimed ownership

of the backpack and denied permission to search the bag. Officers placed the

backpack in the trunk of the squad car without conducting a search of the bag. 

At this point, an officer smelled burnt marijuana on Horton. When questioned,

Horton admitted to smoking marijuana earlier that morning. The cab driver also

arrived on the scene, identified Horton and provided officers with additional details

of Horton’s suspicious behavior. Officers then obtained the address for Horton’s aunt

and went to the location. No one at the address knew anyone named Tony Smith or

Tony Williams. The residents also stated that no one had been at their apartment that

morning.

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802
Officers then arrested Horton for interference with official acts at approximately

9:35 a.m. A search of the backpack incident to the arrest revealed a loaded handgun. 

Horton then denied ownership of the backpack. 

Horton was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the handgun as the fruit of an illegal

seizure, and the district court denied his motion. Horton entered a conditional guilty

plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.

II.

Horton argues on appeal that the initial stop was an illegal seizure within the

meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Horton also claims that even assuming the 

officers had justification for the initial seizure, they exceeded the permissible scope

of the stop when they conducted a frisk for weapons and continued to detain and

question him.

We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings

for clear error. United States v. Griffith, 533 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2008). We also

must “give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and

local law enforcement officers.” United States v. Gomez, 312 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.

2002) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)). 

The parties agree that this police encounter was a Terry stop and therefore a

seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.

1, 16–19 (1968). Police may conduct a brief investigative stop when they have

reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is committing or is about to commit a

crime. Id. at 21. This standard requires that officers be able to point to specific,

articulable facts justifying the seizure. Id. Reasonable, articulable suspicion for a

-4-

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802
Terry stop requires less than probable cause of criminal activity, but the suspicion

cannot be based on an “inarticulate hunch[].” See Terry, 392 U.S. at 22. The

existence of reasonable, articulable suspicion is determined by the totality of the

circumstances, taking into account an officer’s deductions and rational inferences

resulting from relevant training and experience. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S.

266, 273–74 (2002).

Various behaviors and circumstances can contribute to, or be sufficient to

provide, reasonable, articulable suspicion. For example, unprovoked flight at the sight

of an officer can contribute to reasonable, articulable suspicion. Illinois v. Wardlow,

528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) (finding the suspect’s flight upon seeing police officers

while in a high-crime area justified Terry stop). Also, a stop typically is justified

when a suspect matches the description of a person involved in a disturbance near in

time and location to the stop. United States v. Hicks, 531 F.3d 555, 558 (7th Cir.

2003).

Before initiating the stop in this case, the officers had received information

from the cab driver on Horton’s odd behavior and the possibility that he was carrying

a knife. Further, Horton matched the physical description, and officers witnessed 

Horton’s flight at the sight of police. The district court did not err in finding that

police had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the initial stop.

Next, Horton argues that the police officers unlawfully expanded the scope of

the Terry stop, first by conducting a protective frisk for weapons and next by

questioning him as to his identity. This argument presents two separate issues, which

we discuss in turn.

Once a suspect is legally stopped, “an officer who has reason to believe the

detained individual may be armed and dangerous may conduct a pat-down search for

weapons to ensure officer safety.” United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir.

-5-

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802
2006). We apply an objective test when determining whether the police officer had

reasonable, articulable suspicion for the pat-down. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. To pass this

test, the officer does not need to be certain that the suspect was armed. Rather, a patdown is permissible if a “reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be

warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.” Id.

Here, officers had information from the cab driver that the suspect may be 

carrying a knife, and Horton matched the physical description of the suspect. The

district court properly found that police did not exceed the scope of the Terry stop by

conducting a protective frisk for weapons. 

Next, an officer may temporarily detain an individual during a Terry stop “to

determine the suspect’s identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more

information.” United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 327 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir.

2003) (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972)). Questioning a suspect

about his or her identity is generally within the confines of a valid Terry stop. See

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). Police officers are allowed to

expand the investigation if routine questioning raises further suspicions. United States

v. Payne, 534 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008). Traveling under an assumed name and

failing to provide identification are factors that, taken in combination with other

circumstances, can provide the necessary suspicion to expand the investigation. 

United States v. Hawthorne, 982 F.2d 1186, 1190 n.4 (8th Cir. 1992).

In this case, Horton was traveling under a different name than he provided

police, gave multiple birth dates and told inconsistent stories as to why he was in

Cedar Rapids. An investigating officer continued to ask about Horton’s identity

because, in the officer’s experience, people who give false names and birth dates do

so because they have outstanding warrants. Therefore, the police officers did not

exceed the scope of the Terry stop by questioning Horton about his identity. There

was sufficient suspicion to justify the expansion of the investigation.

-6-

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-7-

Appellate Case: 09-3032 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686802