IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30202

Summary Calendar

GEORGE RAYMOND THOMAS,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF JONESVILLE; WALTER BARBER; ELDRED ROY; X Y Z

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:11-CV-408

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff–Appellant George Raymond Thomas appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor Defendants–Appellees Town of Jonesville,

Walter Barber, Eldred Roy, and X Y Z Insurance Company (collectively,

Defendants) on his federal and state claims related to his arrest on March 15,

2010. We affirm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 13, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 13-30202 Document: 00512372924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2013
No. 13-30202

The sequence that led to Thomas’s arrest began with Defendant–Appellee

Officer Barber’s investigatory stop of Thomas when responding to a report of a

fight and a large crowd at the scene of a shooting that had occurred hours

earlier. On appeal, Thomas argues that the district court erroneously

determined that Officer Barber had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

sufficient to support the investigatory stop. Although Thomas’s complaint does

not allege that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Officer Barber’s

investigatory stop, Thomas asserts that the district court’s grant of summary

judgment on the claims raised in his complaint is “fatally flawed.”

We reject Thomas’s argument that Officer Barber did not have reasonable

suspicion to perform an investigatory stop. Thomas asserts that multiple reports

directly to Officer Barber by citizens at the scene that Thomas possessed a gun

could not provide a basis for reasonable suspicion. This argument ignores the

totality of the circumstances surrounding Officer Barber’s investigatory stop of

Thomas.

“Under Terry v. Ohio1and its progeny, a temporary investigative stop (a

seizure of the person) is proper if the stop is based on reasonable suspicion ‘that

criminal activity may be afoot.’”2 We determine whether a police officer had

reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances.3In this case,

Officer Barber and one other officer were the first responders to the scene of a

murder that had occurred hours earlier following reports of a large crowd and

a fight. No suspect had yet been apprehended, and the murder weapon had not

been recovered. When the officers arrived, there was a crowd of dozens people. 

1

392 U.S. 1 (1968)

2 United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 988 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at

30).

3 United States v. Hopes, 286 F.3d 788, 790 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Alabama v. White,

496 U.S. 325 (1990)).

2

 Case: 13-30202 Document: 00512372924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2013
No. 13-30202

A fight was taking place. By Thomas’s own admission, the scene was “hectic”

and “intense.” As soon as the officers exited their vehicles, several bystanders,

including two that Officer Barber could identify by nickname, shouted that

someone in or around Thomas’s vehicle “had a gun.” Accordingly, Officer Barber

asked Thomas to come to the back of Thomas’s vehicle in order to verify whether

Thomas possessed a firearm. Officer Barber then attempted to conduct a patdown search of Thomas.

Viewed together, these facts are more than sufficient to support Officer

Barber’s investigatory stop of Thomas. Thomas’s lone argument to the

contrary—that eyewitness tips are the equivalent of anonymous tips submitted

over the phone—is not persuasive. This circuit and other circuits have

recognized that face-to-face reports are qualitatively different from anonymous,

telephoned tips.4 Taking into account the recent murder that occurred at the

same scene, the fact that a fight was taking place, the scene’s otherwise hectic

and crowded nature, and the eyewitness reports that someone in Thomas’s

vehicle possessed a firearm, Officer Barber had reasonable suspicion to conduct

the investigatory stop.5

* * *

AFFIRMED.

4 E.g., Hopes, 286 F.3d at 789-90; United States v. Heard, 367 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir.

2004); United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 354-55 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v.

Christmas, 222 F.3d 141, 144-45 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Salazar, 945 F.2d 47, 50-51

(2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Sierra-Hernandez,581 F.2d 760, 763 (9th Cir. 1978); see also

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).

5 See Hopes, 286 F.3d at 789-90; United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200, 207-10 (5th

Cir. 1993) (holding that the holding at gunpoint and handcuffing of a reportedly “suspicious”

person with a gun was permissible under Terry); see also United States v. Conner, 699 F.3d

1225, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that an investigatory stop in a high-crime area based

on a 911 call stating that the defendant possessed a gun was reasonable); Valentine, 232 F.3d

at 352, 356-57 (upholding an investigatory stop in a high-crime area based on a face-to-face

tip that the informant had “just seen a man with a gun”).

3

 Case: 13-30202 Document: 00512372924 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2013