# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 22 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je rem ia h D. Co tt er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 12

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 12 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Je rem ia h Cot te r was co nv ic te d of on e co un t of bei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of

a fir earm ba se d on ev id en ce po li ce of fic ers ob ta in ed fo ll owi ng a p a t

- d o w n se arch

o ut si de a ho m e in In de pe nd en ce, Mi ss ou ri. On ap pe al

, Co tt er arg ue s th e di s t r i c tco ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s th e ev id en ce an d st at em en ts ob ta in ed 1

as a res ul t of th e se arch be cau se th e of fic ers di d no t h a ve a reas on ab le art ic ul ab le

su sp ic io n th a t cri m in al act iv it y was afo ot or th at Co tt er was arm ed an d da ng ero us

. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Co tt er’s m ot io n to

su pp res s.

On Ju ne 16

, 20 11

, Offi cers Je rem ie St au ch an d Log an W at erwo r t h o f th e

In de pe nd en ce Po li ce Dep art men t res po nd ed to a cal l to ch eck on th e well -b ei ng of

two fem al es at 12 17 So ut h W il lo w Ave nu e, an ad dr es s whe re po l i c e ha d rece iv ed

p r ev io us co m

pl ai nt s of il le ga l dr ug act iv it y an d st ol en ve hi cl es

. W he n th e o f f i c e r s

arri ve d at th e res id en ce, th ey sa w a m an —l at er id en ti fie d as Co tt er— wor ki ng on th e

st ereo sp eak ers of a Cad il la c pa rk ed in th e dr iv eway. As th e of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th e

ho us e, Co tt er to ld th em he was wor ki ng on th e s p e a k e r s fo r a fri en d na m ed Mat t.

Offi cer St au ch th en kn oc ke d on th e do or an d sp ok e to on e of th e fem al es who was th e

su bjec t of th e or ig in al po li ce cal l. Afte r co nf irming th e wom an ’s well -b ei ng , Offi cer

St au ch as ke d ab ou t Co tt er, an d th e wom an to ld hi m th at sh e di d no t kn ow Co tt er an d

di d no t kn ow to who m th e ve hi cl e be lo ng ed

. Mea nwh il e, Offi cer W at erwo rth radioe d

in th e li cen se pl at e nu m

be r fo r th e ve hi cl e in th e dr iv eway an d was in fo rm ed th at th e pl at es were reg is te red to a Ch ev ro le t, n ot a Cad il la c. Afte r Offi cer St au ch fin is he d

t a l k i n g t o th e wom an at th e ho us e, Offi cer W at erwo rth to ld hi m ab ou t th e li cen s e pl at e di sc rep an cy , a n d t h e two of fic ers de ci de d to as k fo r Co tt er’s na m e an d

id en ti fic at io n. In it ia ll y , Co tt er to ld th e of fic ers th at hi s na m e was “ Mi ch ael Co tt er,”

bu t he sa id he di d no t ha ve an y fo rm of id en ti fic at io n an d he si ta te d whe n th e of fic ers

as ke d hi m to pr ov id e hi s da te of bi rth

. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers , Co tt er al so ap pe ared

ne rv ou s an d s ha ky du rin g t he en co un te r an d re ach ed in si de th e v eh ic le

.

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e Rep or t an d Rec om m en da t i o n s of th e Hon or ab le

Jo hn T. Mau gh m er, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te J u d g e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of

Mi ss ou ri.

-2

-A t t h a t p o i nt

, Offi cer St au ch pe rfo rm ed a pr ot ect iv e fri sk of Co tt er an d fel t

wha t h e be li ev ed to be th e bu tt of a ha nd gu n tu ck ed in to Co tt er’s fro nt wais tb an d.

The of fic ers rem ov ed th e gu n fro m C o t t e r’s wais tb an d, pl aced Co tt er un de r arre st

,

an d pu t hi m in ha nd cu ffs

. Offi cer St au ch th en le d Co tt er to hi s pa tro l car an d ag ai n

as ke d Co tt er fo r h i s n a me. At th at po in t, Co tt er ga ve th e of fic er hi s so ci al se cu rit y

nu m be r an d s ai d t ha t h is fir st na m e was Jer em ia h. Offi cer S ta uc h t he n ra n C ot te r’s

so ci al se cu rit y nu m

be r, di sc ov ered Co tt e r ha d two ou ts ta nd in g arre st warra nt s, an d

tra ns po rte d Co tt er to th e po li ce st at io n. Su bs eq ue nt ly, Offi cer St au ch le arn ed th at

Co tt er h ad a pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on

.

A fed eral gr an d jury ret ur ne d an in di ct m en t ch arg in g Co tt er wit h on e co un t of

be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Co tt er m ov ed

to su pp res s th e di sc ov ery o f th e gu n, s ta te m en ts he m ad e at th e sc en e reg ard in g t he

own ers hi p of th e gu n, an d st at em en ts he m ad e at th e p o l i c e st at io n aft er of fic ers

in fo rm ed hi m of hi s rig ht s un de r Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6)

. On

Ja nu ary 3, 20 12

, th e di st ric t cou rt den ie d Cot te r’s m ot io n, with th e ex cep ti on of th e

st at em en t m ad e at th e sc en e pr io r to an y Mir an da warn in gs

. Two da y s aft er th e

de n i a l o f h i s m ot io n, Co tt er en te red a co nd it io na l gu il ty p le a, res erv in g hi s rig ht to

ap pe al th e d en ia l o f hi s s up pr es si on m ot io n.

In rev ie win g a m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w qu es ti on s of l a w d e no vo bu t

rev i e w th e “ un de rlyin g fact ua l de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r, gi vi ng du e weig ht to

in fere nc es dr awn by la w en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls .” Uni te d St at es v. Mab er y , 68 6 F.3 d

59 1, 59 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ W e wil l affir m th e di st ric t co ur t ‘unl es s th e de ni al of th e

m ot io n “ is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n

of th e la w, or , ba se d on t h e e n t i r e reco rd

, it is cl ear th at a m is ta ke was m ad e.”’”

Uni te d St at es v. Za mor a- Lo pe z , 6 85 F.3 d 78 7, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Payn e , 53 4 F .3d 94 8, 9 51 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

-3

-“ [A]n of fic er m ay , co ns is te nt wi t h t h e Fo ur th Am en dm en t co nd uc t a br ie f

in ve st ig at or y st op whe n th e of fic er ha s reas on ab le art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n th at cri m in al

act iv it y is afo ot .” Ill in oi s v. W ar dl ow , 52 8 U.S. 11 9, 12 3 (2 00 0)

. In ad di ti on , if th e

of fic er reas on ab ly be li e v e s t h e pe rs on wit h who m he is de al in g is arm ed an d

da ng ero us , he is pe r m it te d to co nd uc t a pr ot ect iv e se arch of th e pe rs on ’s ou te r

cl ot h i n g , a n d a ny weap on s se iz ed as th e res ul t of su ch a se arch “ m ay pr op erl y be

in tro du ced in ev id en ce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on fro m who m th ey were ta ke n.” Ter ry v.

Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1, 30 -3 1 (1 96 8)

. Howev er, su ch a se arch req ui res m or e th an an

of fic er’s “ in ch oa te an d un pa rti cu la riz ed su sp ic io n or ‘hun ch .’ ” Id

. at 27

. In st ead

, th e

of fic er con du ct in g th e se arch “ m us t be ab le to po in t to sp eci fic an d art ic ul ab le fact s

whi ch , t ak en to ge th er wit h rat io na l in fere nc es fro m th os e fact s, re as on ab ly warra nt

th at in tru si on .” Id

. at 21

. “ In de te rm in in g whe th er reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is ts , we

co ns id er th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces i n l i g h t of th e of fic ers ’ ex pe rie nc e an d

sp eci al iz ed tra in in g.” Uni te d St at es v. Pres to n , 6 8 5 F.3 d 68 5, 68 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 45 7 F.3d 81 7, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). Fu rth er, “ [t]he

of fic er ne ed no t be ab so lu te ly cert ai n th at th e in di vi du al is arm ed ; th e is su e is whe th er

a reas on ab ly pr ud en t m an in th e ci rcu m st an ces wou ld be warra nt ed in th e be li ef th at

hi s s a f e t y o r t h a t of ot he rs was in da ng er.” Ter ry , 3 92 U.S. a t 27

. If, ho wev er, th e

of fic ers co nd uc t an il le ga l se arch or de te nt io n, ph y si cal ev id en ce fro m th e se arch as

well as ve rb al ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e de te nt io n m us t be ex cl ud ed as th e “ fru it s”

of th e of fic ers ’ un la wfu l act io n. W on g Su n v. Uni te d St a t e s , 37 1 U.S. 47 1, 48 4- 85
(1 96 3)

.

Here, Co tt er co nt en ds th at Offi cers St au ch an d W at erwo rth la ck ed reas on ab le

art ic ul ab le su sp ic i o n t h at cri m in al act iv it y was afo ot or th at Co tt er was arm ed an d

da ng ero us

. Co tt er arg ue s t ha t se ve ral of th e act io ns de sc rib ed by th e of fic ers —fo r

ex am ple, Co tt er’s ne rv ou s de m ean or —al so ha ve in no cen t ex pl an at io ns

. Co ns id er ing

th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , ho wev er, th e of fic ers ha d reas on ab le art ic ul ab le

gr ou nd s to su sp ect th at cri m in al act iv it y was afo ot

. Afte r th e of fic ers ob se rv ed Co tt er

wor ki ng on a car ou ts id e a ho m e wit h a hi st or y of il le ga l dr ug act iv it y an d st ol en

-4

-au to m ob il e co m pl ai nt s, on e of th e res id en ts of th e ho m e to ld Offi cer St au ch th at sh e

di d no t kn ow Co tt er an d di d no t kn ow to who m th e ve hi cl e be l on ge d. At th e sa m e

ti m e, a ve hi cl e reco rd s se arch rev eal ed th at th e pl at es on th e ve hi cl e were reg is te red

to a di ffer en t au to m ob il e. As th e of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed Co tt er, he was reac hi ng in si de

th e ve hi cl e. The n, as th ey sp ok e to hi m , he ap pe ared ne rv ou s an d sh ak y th ro ug ho ut

th e en co un te r an d he si ta te d whe n th e of fic ers as ke d hi m fo r hi s da te of bi rth

. Alt ho ug h th ere c o u l d be an in no cen t ex pl an at io n fo r each in di vi du al act io n, whe n

ta ke n to ge th er wi t h r at io na l in fere nc es fro m th os e fact s, it was reas on ab le fo r th e

of fic ers to su sp ect th at th e ve hi cl e was st ol en

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Han lo n , 40 1 F.3 d

92 6, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ [d efen da nt ’s st at em en t ab ou t th e tru ck ’s

own ers hi p] was in co ns is te nt wit h th e tru ck ’s re gis tr at ion sta tus [, and w] he n co m

bi ne d

wit h [d efen da nt ’s] ex tre m e ne rv o us ne ss , pr of us e sh ak in g, an d refu sa l to lo ok [th e

of fic er] in th e ey e, th is in co ns is te nc y was su ffi ci en t to crea te a reas on ab le su sp ic io n

th at th e tru ck m ig ht be st ol en .”). “ Acco rd in gl y , bec au se [th e of fic er] a lre ad y ha d a

reas on ab le su sp ic io n th at [Co tt er] m ig ht ha ve st ol en th e [v eh ic le ], [th e of fic er] al so

was jus ti fie d in su sp ect in g th at [Co tt er] m ig ht po ss es s weap on s.” I d

. a t 9 29 -3 0.

Thu s, th e of

fic ers co nd uc te d a pr op er Ter ry st op

. Bec au se th e Ter ry st op was pr op er,

th e di st ric t co ur t al so di d no t err in refu si ng to su pp res s Co tt er’s su bs eq ue nt

Mir an di ze d co nf es si on , as i t was no t t he fru it of a po is on ou s t ree.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-