FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 61 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 8- cr-0 02 24 -WT M-GRS -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us HAROLD SHAW

N W ILLIAMS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 13 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Haro ldW il li am s was arre st edon gu n c harg es aft er p ol ic e in ve st ig at in g a ne arb y gu nf ire in ci de ntst op pe d the car i n wh ic h h e was rid in g. Aft er the di st ric tco urt d en ie d h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s a g un fou nddu rin g the st op , W il li am s

co nd it io na ll y

pl ead edgu il ty to t he un la wfu l p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). W il li am s n ow ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g t he de ni al of h is m ot io n, an d we m us t d eci de whet he r th e p ol ic e h adreas on ab le su sp ic io n t o s to p t he car. I Offi cer S am

ue l Hu ntwas p ark edou ts id e a p ub li c h ou si ng pro ject i n Sav an na h, Geo rg ia , fil li ng ou t p ap erwo rk , when he he arda gu ns ho t. Itwas 1 :3 0 in th e m orni ng , th e st reet s wer e qui et , andha vi ng work edth e are a fo r two y ears , Offi cer Huntkn ew th atth e h ou si ng pro ject h adit s fa ir s ha re o f cri m e. W it hi n a few s eco nd s, a c ar qui ck ly pul le d o utof o ne of t he ho us in g p ro ject’s t wo ex it s an d he ad eddo wn t he roa d. Hi s s us pi ci on s ar ou se d, Offi cer Hu ntcal le d fo r ba ckup an d p ul le d t he car o ve r. Bac kup a rri ve d afew m in ut es lat er, an d a no th er p ol ic e o ffi cer s tand in g ju st a few fe etaway

saw Har ol d Wil li am s, a p as se ng er i n t he car, re m ov e a h an dg un fro m hi s wai stba ndan d try

to hi de itun de r th e cen te r co ns ol e. The p ol ic e imm ed ia te ly arres te d Wil li am s an d s ei zedth e g un , whi ch lat er fo rm edth e b as is for anin di ct m en t ch arg in g Wil li am s wi th th e u nl awfu l p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ).

2W il li am s m ov edto supp res s t he gu n o n t he gro un d t ha t Offi cer Hu ntha d

no t h adreas on ab le su sp ic io n t o ju st ify sto pp in g t he car. A m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d d en y in g t he m ot io n, an d t he di st ric t co urt ag reed . W il li am s the n en te reda co nd it io na l g ui lt y pl ea re se rv in g t he rig htto ch al le ng e th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. He n ow ex erci se s tha t ri gh t, an d we a ffi rm hi s co nv ic ti on . II

“ The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro hi bi ts ‘ un reas on ab le search es an d s ei zu res ’ by th e Gov ern m en t, an d i ts pro te ct io ns ex te nd[ev en ] to bri ef i nv es ti ga to ry st op s o f pe rs on s o r ve hi cl es th atfal l s ho rt o f tr ad it io na l arres t.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ar vi zu , 53 4 U.S. 2 66 , 27 3 (2 00 2) . Accor di ng ly, th e g en eral rul e is th atlaw en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls m ay

no t d et ai n ape rs on witho utpro babl e cau se to be li ev e th athe ha s co m m it te d acri m e. Bu t i n t he co nt ex t o f “ ne ces sa ril y swi ft a ct io n p red ic at edup on th e o n- th e-s po t o bs erv at io ns of t he off ic er o n t he be at ,” th e Supr em e Co urt h as craf te d a n e xc ep ti on to th atrul e: “ whe re a p ol ic e o ffi cer o bs erv es un us ua l co nduc t whi chlea ds hi m

reas on ab ly to co nc lu de inli gh t o f hi s ex pe rie nc e th atcri m in al act iv ity m ay be afo ot ,” th e o ffi cer m ay bri efl y st op th e p ers on s i nv ol ve d t o co nf irm ordi sp el hi s s us pi ci on s. Ter ryv. Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1 , 20 , 30 (19 68 ). Inacco rd an ce wi th th e Co urt’s d es cri pt io n o f th es e “ Terryst op [s ], ” “ la w en fo rcem en t ag en ts m ay

bri efl y st op a m ov in g aut om ob il e to in ve st ig at e a

3reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t i ts oc cupa nt s ar e in vo lv edincri m in al act iv it y .” Uni te d

St at es v. Hens le

y , 46 9 U.S. 2 21 , 22 6 (1 98 5) . In ad di ti on , “ th e p ol ic e are no t au to m at ic al ly sho rnof aut ho rity to st op a su sp ect. . . m erel y be cau se th e cri m in al ha s co m pl et edhi s cr im e an d e sc ap edfro m th e sc en e.” Id. at22 8. “ [I]f po li ce h av e a rea so nabl e su sp ic io n, g ro un de d i n s pe ci fic an d arti cu labl e fac ts , th ata pe rs on th ey en co un te r was in vo lv edin . . . a co m pl et edfel on y , th ena Ter ryst op m ay be m ad e to in ve st ig at e th atsu sp ic io n.” Id. at 2 29 . The on ly que st io n h ere i s wh ethe r Offi cer Hu ntha d re as on to su sp ectth at th e o ccupant s o f th e carhe st op pe d h adbe enin vo lv edin cri m in al act iv it y . “ [T]he 1 co nc ep t o f rea so nabl e su sp ic io n i s s om ewh atab st ract ,” bu t t hi s m uc h i s cl ear: we m us t co ns id er the “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ” an d d et erm in e fo r ou rs el ve s 2 whe th er Offi cer Hu ntha d a“pa rti cu la riz edan d o bjec ti ve ba si s fo r su sp ect in g wro ng do in g.” Arvi

zu , 53 4 U.S. at27 4, 2 73 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ Alt ho ug h anoff ic er’s rel ianc e o n am ere h un ch is in su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify a st op , th e li ke li ho od of cri m in al act iv it y

ne edno t ri se to th e le ve l re qu ire d fo r pr ob ab le cau se , andit At the hea

ringon Wil liams’s motion t o suppress, Of fice r Hunt testified that he had also 1 seen the car

roll throug h a stop sign, a lthough that infor mation was not included in his incident repor t. Be cause he admitted, and the Gover nment now conc edes, that he stopped the c ar ba sed solely on his suspicions of the occupa nts’ involvement in a possible shooting, we do not decide whether Offic er Hunt had proba

ble ca use to stop the car . See A rvizu , 534 U.S. at 275 (“[T]he standard f or appe llate re view of r easona ble- 2 suspicion determinations should be de novo , rathe r than for ‘abuse of discre tion.’”). 4fal ls co ns id erab ly sho rt o f sa ti sf y in g apre po nd eran ce o f th e ev id en ce s ta nd ard .” Id. at 2 74 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . W il li am s ar gu es th atOffic er Hu ntlac ke d ju st ifi cat io n t o c on du cta Ter ry st op be cau se th e h ou si ng pro ject h adtwo ex it s, Offi cer Hu ntco ul d s ee o nl y on e o f th em , andth e sh oo te r co ul d h av e u se d o th er. Bu t t he law d oe s n otrequi re ab so lu te cert ai nty

or e ve n p ro babl e cau se be fo re an off ic er s to ps a car; he ne ed on ly reaso nabl y

su sp ectth atit s o ccupa nt s ar e in vo lv edin cri m in al act iv ity . Whe n Offi cer Huntsaw alo ne ve hi cl e h urrie dl y pu ll in g o utof ahi gh -cri m e h ou si ng pr ojec t i n t he m id dl e o f th e n ig htwithi n s eco nd s o f a g un sh ot , itwas e m in en tl y reas on ab le of h im

to su sp ectth atth e car ’s occ up an ts m ig htha ve co m m it te d a cri m e. Acco rd Uni te d Sta te s v. Bo lden , 50 8 F .3d20 4, 2 06 (5t h C ir. 2 00 7) (“ [W] he n a n o ffi cer s ees a so li tary ve hi cl e . . . leav in g t he pre ci se sp otwher e th at of fic er h as go odreas on to be li ev e th atm ul ti pl e p ers on s wer e sh oo ti ng les s t ha n a m in ut e b efo re, i t i s m or e th ana ‘hun ch ’ th atth os e in th e v eh ic le m ay be in vo lv ed in th e sh oo ti ng .”); Uni te d Sta te s v. Hen ni ng , 90 6 F .2d13 92 , 13 96 (10 th Cir . 19 90 ) (co nc lu di ng th atreas on ab le su sp ic io n ju st ifi edth e st op of alo ne car, m ov in g qu ic kl y , th at“ em erg edfro m th e g en eral areaof a n e arl y m orni ng gu ns ho t h eardby of fic ers on ly seco nd s earli er” i n ahi gh -cri m e are a).

5The ve hi cl e st op he re was jus ti fie d b y Offic er Hunt ’s reas on ab le su sp ic io n, an d t he res ul ti ng sea rchin ci de ntto W il li am s’s arres t re ve al eda hi dd engu n. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by den y in g Wil li am s’s m ot io n t o supp res s t he gu n s ei zeddu rin g t he st op . His c on vi ct io n i s t he refo re AFFIRMED.

6