NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2793 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. L UKE GAT L I N,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 1- 06- cr - 00028- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet

A r gued M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O , and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 15, 2010)

R obertD . G ol dber g, E s qui r e ( A r gued) B ig g s & B a ttag lia 921 O r ange Str eet P. O . B ox 1489 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 C ouns el forA ppel l antT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 Seth M . B eaus ang, E s qui r e ( A r gued) Il an a H . E isen stei n , E sq u ir e O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 1007 N or th O r ange Str eet , Sui t e 700 P. O . B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 C ouns el forA ppel l ee OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e l l a n tL u k e G a t l i n w a s c o n v i c t e d o f o n e c o u n to f

p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a car eeroffe nderi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) ( 1) . O n appea l , he a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n s th a t cu m u lativ e lyse e k (1 ) to s uppr es s the evi dence of the gun, ( 2) t o compel di s cl os ur e of the i dent i tyof the confi dent i al i nform anti nvol ved i n hi s cas e, and ( 3) fora j udgm entof ac qui t t al pur s uant t o F ederal R ule of C ri m i nal Procedu re 29(c) . W e affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders . 1 I. O n February9, 2006, ar ound 7: 00 p. m . , W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce D et ect i ve J os eph L e a ryre c e iv e d a p h o n e c a ll fro m a k n o w n a n d re liab le c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t tellin g h im thata man w as w al ki ng i n t he ar ea of 30th and M arketSt r eet s i n W i l m i ngt on w i th a3

pi s t ol i n hi s fr ontr i ghtcoatpocket . T he i nform antdes cr i bed thi s i ndi vi dual as a “l i ght s ki nned bl ack mal e, appr oxi m at el yfi ve footei ght , w ear i ng a C hi cago Cubs hat , bl ack hooded j acke tand bl ack bl ue j eans [and] had a ha nd gun i n hi s r i ghtfr ontcoatpocket . ” A p p . 1 7 -1 8 . D e tec tiv e L e a ryth e n c a lled p o lice d isp a tch to h a v e th is m e ss a g e re layed to a n y o f f i c e r s i n th a tv i c i n i ty. D el aw ar e Pr obat i on and Par ol e O ffi cerB r i an K anane n and W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce D et ect i ve J os hua B ur ch r es ponded t o thi s cal l and w entt o the cornerof 30th and M arket St r eet s . W hen theyarr i ved, ther e w er e betw een 15 a nd 30 peopl e atthe i nt er s ect i on and, though the s un had al r eadys et , the ar ea w as w el l - l i t . A pp. 84. A m ong thi s cr ow d, t he offi cer s s pot t ed a man w ear i ng a bl ue C ubs hatw ho m at ched the i nform ant ’ s des cr i pt i on stan d ing at th e p asse n g er w ind o w o f a red Jee p G ran d C h ero k ee . A p p . 3 6 . T h e o ff icers gotoutof thei rpatr ol car , D et ect i ve B ur ch dr ew hi s gun and or der ed the man dow n on the gr ound, and O ffi cerK anane n handcuf fed the man behi nd hi s back. T he l att erthen p a tte d th e m a n d o w n f

o r w e a p o n s , a n d f

o u n d a h a n d g u n in h is ri g h t f ro n t c o a t p o c k e t. A pp. 37. A tthatpoi nt , O ffi cerK anane n r ecogni zed the i ndi vi dual as L uke G at l i n, bas ed o n th e i rp r e v i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n s i n th e De l a wa r e p r o b a t i o n s y s t e m. G a tli n w a s a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d a s n o ted a b o v e . B e f o re h is tria l, G a tli n m o v e d to su p p re ss th e e v id e n c e o f th e g u n , arg u in g th a t th e o f f ice rs la c k e d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to s to p a n d s e a rc h h im b a s e d s o le ly o n th e tip th a t h e w a s c a rr y in g a c o n c e a le d h a n d g u n . T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r td e n i e d th i s m o t i o n b e c a u s e i ti s a c r i m e i n D e l a w a r e t o c a rry a4

conce al ed dea dl yw eapon w i thouta l i cens e. 11 D el . C . § 1442. G a tli n a lso m o v e d p re -tria l to re v e a l th e id e n tityo f th e in f o rm a n t b a se d o n h is j us t i fi cat i on defe ns e theory . G at l i n as s ert ed that , s hor t l ybefor e the t i p w as m ade, he had been r obbed atgunpoi ntand managed t o w r es tthe gun aw ayfr om hi s r obber . I f the i nfo rm ant w ere the sam e person as t he robb er, he argu ed, this w ou l d b uttres s hi s defen se theory . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed thi s m ot i on, fi ndi ng thatthi s theoryw as t oo att enuat ed t o d e f e a tth e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s p r i v i l e g e t o c o n c e a l th e i n f o r m a n t ’ s i d e n t i ty. G at l i n w as found gui l tyaft era j urytr i al . H e then moved fora j udgm entof acqui t t al , underFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 29( c) , ar gui ng thatthe G overnm ent had fa i l ed t o pr ove thatthe gun had tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce be caus e i thad not cert i fi ed one of

i t s w i tnes s es as an expe r t . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, fi ndi ng thatG at l i n had w ai ved thi s ar gum entbynotobj ect i ng t o the w i tnes s ’ s qual i fi cat i ons at tr ial . F u rth erm o re, th e C o u rtco n clud ed that, ev en b arring this w itn ess’s testi m o n y , there w o u ld still b e su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. II. A . M ot i on t o S up press G at l i n fir stargues that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in den y i ng his m oti on t o sup press th e h a n d g u n . S p e c if

ica lly , h e c laim s th a t th e tip d id n o t in d ica te h e w a s e n g a g e d in c rim in a l ac tiv ityb e c a u se it co n tain e d n o in f o rm a tio n a b o u t w h e th e r h e w a s lic e n se d to carrya conc eal ed w eapon. H e cont ends fur therthatthe pol i ce ha d no bas i s t o s ear ch5

hi m forw eapons beca us e, al though theyhad r eas on t o bel i eve he w as arm ed, theyhad no reas on t o b el i eve h e w as dang erous.

“‘ W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of [a ] m ot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras to the u n d erly ing fa cts, b u t exe rcise p lena ryrev iew as to it s leg ali tyin li g h t of the c o u rt ’s pr oper l yfound fa ct s . ’ ” U n itedS ta tes v . L a

ffer ty , 503 F. 3d 293, 298 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 3 2 0 F . 3 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). A b ri ef , inv esti g atorystop is va li d u n d er T e rr y v . O h io , 3 9 2 U . S . 1 (19 6 8 ), “w hen the off i cerhas a r eas onabl e, art i cul abl e s us pi ci on thatcr i m i nal act i vi tyi s afoot . ” Illino is v. W ar dl ow , 528 U . S. 119, 123 ( 2000) ( ci t i ng T erry , 392 U . S. at30) . W hen the off i cer has “r eas on t o bel i eve thathe i s deal i ng w i th an arm ed and da nger ous i ndi vi dual , ” he m aythen conduc ta “r eas onabl e s ear ch forw eapons forthe pr ot ect i on of the pol i ce offi cer . ” T

erry , 392 U . S. at27. T he s t op and s ear ch ar e thus i ndepende ntact i ons , and e a c h re q u ir e s its o w n ju s tif ic a tio n . A r iz ona v. Johns on , 1 2 9 S . C t. 7 8 1 , 7 8 4 (20 0 9 ). In det erm i ni ng w hetherther e w as r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, w e cons i derthe t ot al i tyof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

al ent i ne , 232 F. 3d 350, 353 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Sokol ow , 4 9 0 U .S . 1 , 7 (1 9 8 9 )). If e ith e r th e sto p o r th e se a rc h is im p rop er u n d er T

erry , then the r emedyi s t o s uppr es s anyevi dence obt ai ned fr om that s e a rc h . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 9 2 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). B e c a u se it i s u n d isp u ted th a t th e tip w a s re liab le, th e f irst q u e stio n b e f

o re u s is w hetherthe off

i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op G at l i n bas ed s ol el yon the6

i nform at i on thathe w as carr y i ng a conc eal ed handgun. T hi s cas e i s fac tual l ydi ffe r ent fr om m os t , i n t hati tl acks ot herfac t or s nor m al l ypr es entthats ugges tthatthe def endant w a s e n g a g e d i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty ( e. g. , pr es ence i n a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea l at e atni ght , or a tte m p tin g to f

le e f ro m th e p o lic e , s e e V

a le n tin e , 232 F. 3d at356- 57) . N onethel es s , t he p o lice h a d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n b a se d so lelyo n th e tip b e c a u se , w h ile it is p o ss ib le to have a conce al ed handgun l i cens e, carry i ng a conc eal ed handgun i s pr es um ed t o be a cr i m e i n D el aw ar e, as “[t ] he bur den i s upon the def endantt o es t abl i s h thathe had a l i cens e t o carr y[the] conce al ed . . . w eapon. ” L ive ly v . S ta te , 4 2 7 A .2 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 4 (D e l. 1981) ( quot i ng Mo d e sto v . S ta te , 258 A . 2d 287, 288 ( D el . Super . 1969) ) . T hus , carr y i ng a conc eal ed handgun i s a p rim a fa c ie c rim e in D e law a re to w h ich p o ss e ss in g a v a lid lic e n s e is a d e f

e n s e . I d. T hi s pr es um pt i on underD el aw ar e l aw di s t i ngui s hes G at l i n’ s cas e fr om our deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

bi l es , 2 2 4 F .3 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). U bi l es pr es ent ed a fac tual l ys i m i l ars cena r i o – offi cer s conduct ed a s t op and fr i s k bas ed s ol el yon a t i p t hat a n in d iv id u a l w a s a rm e d – in w h ich w e h e ld th a t th e tip d id n o t su p p lyre a so n a b le s us pi ci on beca us e the arr es t i ng offi cer s “had no r eas on t o bel i eve thatU bi l es w as

‘ i nvol ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty . ’ ” Id . T h a t is b e c a u se “ [ i]t is n o t n e c e ss a rilya c rim e to pos s es s a fi r earm i n t he V i r gi n I s l ands . ” I d. Puts i m pl y , the V i r gi n I s l ands does not a p p ly D e la w a re ’s p re s u m p tio n o f ille g a lity. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . M

c K ie , 112 F. 3d 626, 63 0 (3d C i r. 19 97 ) ( st at i ng that, un der V i rgi n Isl and s’ l aw , “[t ]he gov ernm ent m ustW hi l e w e ar e tr oubl ed bythe manneri n w hi ch the s ear ch w as conduct ed – at 2 g u n p o int, o rde ri n g G atl in to the g rou n d , an d then h an d cu ff ing h im b eh ind h is ba ck b ef o re e v e n a s k in g h im a s in g le q u e s tio n – th is is s u e is n o t b e f o re u s o n a p p e a l. 7 p rov e the ab sen ce o f a firearm s li ce n se” ). H er e, beca us e i ti s pr es um ed thatconce al ed h a n d g u n b e a re rs a re v io latin g th e law , the o f f ice rs h a d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n b a se d so lely on the t i p thats om eone mat chi ng G at l i n’ s des cr i pt i on w as carry i ng a handgun i n hi s coat p o c k e t. H a v in g d e ter m in e d th a t th e re is a p re su m p tio n o f ill e g a lityb a se d o n th e tip , it nece s s ar i l yfol l ow s thatthe off i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on notonl yt o s t op G at l i n but al s o t o s ear ch hi m . B eca us e G at l i n w as arm ed and pr es um abl ycomm i t t i ng a cr i m e, t he o ff icers h ad rea so n ab le su sp ici o n that h e w as a rm ed an d d an g ero u s, an d thu s the yw ere justi fied u n d er T

erry t o conducta s ear ch forw eapons . T hus , w e conc l ude thatthe 2 D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng G at l i n’s m oti on t o sup press . B . C o n f

id e n tial In f

o rm a n t’s Id e n tity G a tli n a rg u e s th a t th e id e n tityo f D e tec tiv e L e a ry ’s in f

o rm a n t is c e n tra l to h is defe ns e. H e s us pect s thatthe i nform antm i ghtbe the s ame i ndi vi dual , D aquon A n d e rso n , w h o a lleg e d lyro b b e d h im a t g u n p o in t sh o rtlyb e f o re h e w a s a rre ste d a t 3 0 th a n d M a rk e t S tre e ts. If

th e p o lice re v e a led th e in f o rm a n t’s id e n titya n d v a lid a ted th is s u s p i c i o n , G a t l i n a r g u e s th i s w o u l d l e n d c r e d e n c e t o h i s d e f e n s e th e o ry. “W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o or derdi s cl os ur e of [ a] confi dent i al i nform ant ’ s i dent i tyforabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 302 F. 3d 139,8

149 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W hi l e the G overnm enthas a pr i vi l ege t o w i thhol d the i dent i tyof confi dent i al i nform ant s , “[a ] defe ndantcan ove r come t hi s pr i vi l ege i f he de m ons tr at es th a t d isc lo su re ‘is re lev a n t an d h e lp f u l to [ h is] d e f

e n se ’ o r ‘is e ss e n tial to a f a ir det erm i nat i on’ of hi s gui l t . ” Id . ( ci t i ng R ovi ar o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 353 U . S. 53, 59 (19 5 7 )). G a tli n d id n o t ca rryh is b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g th a t d isc lo su re w a s re lev a n t to h is de fe n se; rathe r, h is de fe n se th eo rym ere lyind icated a h o p e tha t th e inf o rm an t’ s id e n tity w o u ld b e h e lp f

u l. S e e Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 3 F. 3d 673, 679 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( quot i ng R oviaro , 353 U . S. at60- 61) ( “A defe ndantw ho m er el yhopes ( w i thouts how i ng a l i k e l i h o o d ) th a td i s c l o s u r e wi l l l e a d t o e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g s u p p r e s s i o n h a s n o ts h o wn th a t d isc lo su re w ill b e ‘re lev a n t an d h e lp f u l to th e d e f

e n se .. . o r is e ss e n tial to a f a ir d eterm ination ’ of

the c ase ”). E v e n if

A n d e rso n w e re re v e a led a s th e in f o rm a n t, th is w oul d notpr ove thatA nder s on had r obbed G at l i n and thatthe l att erhad obt ai ned the handgun w hi l e def

endi ng hi m s el f i n thatr obbery . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng G at l i n’ s m ot i on t o di s cl os e the i n f o r m a n t ’ s i d e n t i ty. C . Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence G at l i n ar gues thatthe G overnm ent , byr el y i ng on the t es t i m onyof an A T F agent w ho w as notcert i fi ed as an expe r t , fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatG at l i n’ s handgun had tr avel ed i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mm e r c e . “ I n r e v i e wi n g a j u ryv e r d i c tf o rs u f f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e , we9

m us tcons i derthe evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entand af fi r m t he j udgm enti f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d fi nd gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Br o wn , 3 F. 3d at680 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted). H er e, even w i thoutthe t es t i m onyof the A T F A gent , ther e w as s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld h a v e f o u n d th a t th e g u n h a d tra v e led in in ter sta te comm er ce: the A T F dat abas e i ndi cat ed thatthe gun had be en pur chas ed i n V i r gi ni a, and no han dg un s have b een m anu factured i n D el aw are i n n earl y10 0 y ears . * * * * * F or the reasons dis cussed ab ov e, w e affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders .