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- 3866 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . LEV A N M O RA LES, A p p e l l a n t O n 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 . N o. 1- 08- 00100- 001) H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet , D i s tr i ctJ udge Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 25, 2010 B E FO R E : SM I T H , FI SH E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m att ercomes on be for e the C our ton appel l antL evan M or al es ’ s appea l fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed i n thi s cr i m i nal cas e on Sept ember25,T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r th a d s u b j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We 1 have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 2009. M or al es condi t i onal l ypl ed gui l tyt o an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng hi m w i th pos s es s i on

1 of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) aft erbei ng convi ct ed of a cr i m e puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear . M or al es ent er ed the pl ea pur s uantt o an agr eementdat ed M ay21, 2009, thatpr es erved hi s r i ghtunderFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11( a) ( 2) t o appea l fr om an or derdat ed A pr i l 7, 2009, deny i ng h is m o tio n to su p p re ss e v id e n c e . T h e C o u rt e n ter e d th e A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r a f ter a trialtype hea r i ng atw hi ch the C our thear d t es t i m onyfr om s ever al w i tnes s es . U nderthe pl ea a g re e m e n t, i f

w e re v e rse d o n M o ra les ’s a p p e a l o f th e A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r h e c o u ld w ith d ra w h is p lea o f

g u ilty . A s w e w ill e x p lain , M o ra les ra ise s tw o iss u e s o n th is a p p e a l, b o th a d d re ss in g h is c laim th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h is m o tio n to s uppr es s . M or al es ’ s cont ent i ons cent eron the appl i cat i on of Ter ryv. O hi o, 392 U . S. 1, 8 8 S . Ct . 1 8 6 8 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . We r e g a r d th i s c a s e a s i n v o l v i n g l e g a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n s a n d th u s we ar e exe r ci s i ng pl enaryr evi ew . See U ni t ed St at es v. L avi l l e, 480 F. 3d 187, 190- 91 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt se t f o rth th e b a c k g ro u n d o f

th is c a se a n d its f

in d in g s o f

f a c ts and conc l us i ons of l aw i n i t s m emora ndum of A pr i l 7, 2009, acc om pany i ng i t s or derof th a t d a ya n d th u s w e d o n o t re p e a t th o se e lem e n ts o f its m e m o ra n d u m a t len g th . It i s s uffi ci entt o not e thatSer geantM i chae l R odr i guez a nd D et ect i ves D annySi l va and3

R andyPfaff

of the W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce D epart m ents t opped an a ut om obi l e i n w hi ch M o ra les w a s a p a ss e n g e r a n d f ro m w h ich h e a lig h ted . A t th a t ti m e , b yre a so n o f c e rta in as pect s of M or al es ’ s conduct , R odr i guez s us pect ed thathe w as carry i ng a conc eal ed fi r earm . C ons equent l y , R odr i guez a t t empt ed t o s t op M or al es fr om w al ki ng aw ayfr om the s cene buti ni t i al l yw as uns ucce s s ful . H ow ever , byus e of a T as erR odr i guez i ncapa ci t at ed M or al es fol l ow i ng w hi ch R odr i guez r ol l ed M or al es over , s ear ched hi m , and re c o v e re d th e f

ire a rm . A n a rre st a n d p ro se c u tio n f o llo w e d . D u rin g th e se e v e n ts R odr i guez w as w ear i ng a ves tm arked “pol i ce. ” The D i s tr i ctC our tbel i eved thatSi l va an d P fa ff w ere w ea ri n g sim il arlym ark ed v ests b u t th ere is no ev iden ce in the rec o rd s uppor t i ng thatbel i ef. T he tw o i s s ues M or al es r ai s es on appea l ar e: 1. W hen pol i ce e ffe cta Ter rys t op byus e of a T as erdevi ce, but fai l t o adequa t el yi dent i fythemsel ves as pol i ce of fi cer s , m ay evi dence be s uppr es s ed on the gr ound thatthe us e of f or ce w as unr eas onabl e? 2. D i d t he D i s tr i ctC our tcl ear l yerrw hen i tfound thatdet ect i ves P faff an d S i l va w ere w eari ng ‘pol i ce’ vest s duri ng the co urse of the Ter r ys t op? W e a re in f

u ll ac c o rd w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s d isp o sitio n o f th is c a se a n d th u s w ill aff i r m . W e, how ever , not e the fol l ow i ng. R egar dl es s of w hetherthe us e of the Tase rand the met hods us ed i n t he s ubs equents ear ch cons t i tut ed unr eas onabl e us es of for ce, the T errys ear ch w as j us t i fi ed. A ccor di ngl y , the pos s i bl e i l l egal i tyw i th r es pectt o the us e of for ce di d noti nval i dat e the otherw i s e l aw ful r ecove ryof the fi r earm . T hus , w hen vi ew ed4

in th e su p p re ss io n c o n tex t in th is c a se , M o ra les ’s e x c e ss iv e u se o f f o rc e a rg u m e n t is im m a ter ial. S e e U n ited S tate s v . W a tso n , 5 5 8 F .3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 4 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). N o r d o e s it m att erw hetherthe C our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thatPfaff and Si l va w er e w ear i ng ves t s m arked “pol i ce” beca us e theydi d notm ake the Ter rys t op. Pl ai nl yR odr i guez w ho m ade the s t op a n d m a d e th e s e a rc h w o re a v e s t m a rk e d “ p o lic e .” T he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed Sept ember25, 2009, w i l l be aff i r m ed.