2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-14-2010

USA v. Ira Bland

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1755

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Ira Bland" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 2053.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/2053
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-1755

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

IRA BLAND,

Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Crim. No. 1-08-00037-001)

Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, District Judge

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 18, 2009

 

BEFORE: SLOVITER, JORDAN, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 14, 2010)

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal from a final judgment of

conviction and sentence entered in this criminal case on March 5, 2009. A grand jury
2

indicted appellant Ira Bland for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Bland filed a motion to suppress evidence, i.e., the

firearm, which police officers seized without a warrant. At the evidentiary hearing on

the motion the prosecution sought to justify the seizure on the authority of Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968). The District Court agreed with the prosecution and

thus denied the motion in an order and an accompanying comprehensive memorandum

opinion dated September 30, 2008.

After the District Court denied the motion Bland pleaded guilty pursuant to Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(a)(2), preserving his right to appeal from the denial of the motion. The

District Court sentenced Bland to 48 months imprisonment to be followed by a three-year

term of supervised release. Bland then appealed. The District Court had jurisdiction

under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties

agree that we exercise plenary review and inasmuch as the facts in the case are not

disputed we, in turn, agree with them. See United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d

Cir. 2002).

The circumstances of the seizure of the firearm for the most part followed a rather

routine pattern but in one respect were unusual. The routine circumstances were that

patrol officers received a call from a Wilmington, Delaware, police dispatcher to go to a

particular location at which a suspect that the dispatcher described was present. The

dispatcher told the officers that a homicide suspect was sitting in a car that the dispatcher
3

described at that location. The dispatcher also advised the officers that Kevin Coverdale

was the complainant in the homicide case. When the officers arrived at the designated

location of the car they saw a parked vehicle which fit the description that the dispatcher

had given them with Bland as its sole occupant. Bland was wearing clothes that fit the

description that the dispatcher gave of the homicide suspect.

Coverdale, who was at the scene where he was visible in a wide-open area, pointed

out Bland and told the police “that’s the guy that shot my son” and “that’s him, that’s

him.” Coverdale’s identification was unusual for, as one of the officers explained, Bland

could see Coverdale and he, the officer, never before had seen a complainant turn in a

suspect out in the open. Thus, Bland knew that Coverdale had implicated him in the

shooting to the police.

At the time that the officers approached Bland’s vehicle they asked him to alight

from it and he did so. The officers then asked Bland to turn around and put his hands on

the roof of the car and he did that as well. Then one of the officers asked Bland if he had

anything that could hurt the officer and Bland said that he had a gun. The officers seized

the gun and arrested Bland.

The District Court after reviewing the applicable law denied the motion to

suppress as it held that:

Based on the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing, the

Court concludes that the Government has established that reasonable

suspicion supported the investigative Terry stop and frisk of Mr. Bland. 

Patrolman DeBonaventura was instructed to respond to a location known as
4

a high crime area, to investigate an individual alleged to have been involved

in a homicide. The location of the suspect and the description of him were

provided to police by a caller to 911 who identified himself by name and

identified the victim as his son, and the date of his son’s death as December

31. In addition, the caller, Kevin Coverdale, remained at the location of the

suspect until the officers arrived.

App. at 19.

Bland dissects his argument addressing Terry into three parts:

1. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the in-person tip

provided to the police in this case created reasonable suspicion to support a

Terry stop of [him].

2. Whether [he] was searched, prior to being touched, solely because

the officers asked him to exit his vehicle, turn around, and place his hands

on the car.

3. Assuming the Court decides that the officers searched [him]

before actually touching him, whether the officers had reasonable suspicion

that [he] was armed to support a Terry frisk.

Appellant’s br. at 2.

We will affirm. It was entirely appropriate for the officers to go to the location of

the vehicle when they received the dispatcher’s call. Then, when they arrived at the scene,

Coverdale identified Bland to them as the person who had shot his son. At that point it

was more than appropriate for the officers to determine if Bland was armed and to

investigate the situation further. In the light of the circumstance that Coverdale identified

Bland as a killer they would have been foolish if they had not ascertained if Bland was

armed. No matter how Bland slices up his argument that the circumstances did not justify

his search under Terry, we are in full accord with the District Court’s reasoning, based on
5

its unchallengeable findings of fact, that the search was constitutionally permissible. 

The judgment of conviction and sentence entered March 5, 2009, will be affirmed.