## I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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.

A ppeal 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 s ummary judgment in favor D efendants–Appellees Town of Jonesville, Walter Barber, Eldred Roy, and X Y Z Insurance Company (collectively, Defend a nts) on his f

ederal a nd state claims related to his arrest on March 15, 2010. We affirm. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D Septem ber 13, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. 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 o f Thomas when responding to a report of a fight and a large crowd at t he scene of a shooting that had o ccurred hours earlier. On app e a l , Thomas argues that the district court erroneously determined that Officer Barber had r easonable su spicion of criminal activity sufficient to support the investigatory stop. Although T homas’s complaint does not allege that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Officer B arber’s investigatory stop, Thomas asserts that the district court’s g r ant of summary judgment on the claims raised in his complaint is “fatally flawed.” We reject Thomas’s a rgument that O fficer Barber did not have reasonable suspicion to perform a n i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p . Thomas asserts that multiple reports directly t o Officer Barber by c itizens a t the scene that Thomas possessed a gun could not provide a basis for reasonable suspicion. This ar g u m e n t i g nores the totality of the circumstances surrounding Officer Barber’s investigatory stop of Thomas. “Under Terry v. Ohio 1 

### a nd its progeny, a temporary investigative stop (a seizure of t he person) is p roper if the stop is based on reasonable s u spicion ‘that

c riminal activity may b e afoot.’” 2 

### We determine whether a police officer h a d reasonable s u s p icion based on the totality of the circumstances. 3 

### I n this case, Officer Barber and o ne other officer were th e first responders to the scene of a murder that had occurred hours earlier following reports of a large crowd and

a fight. N o 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 U ni ted Sta tes v. Ba sey , 816 F. 2d 980, 988 ( 5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Terry , 392 U

. S. at 30)

.
3 U

ni ted S ta tes v
. H

op es , 286 F. 3d 788, 790 ( 5 th C ir. 2002) ( citing A l a ba m a v
. Whi te , 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 p lace. By Thom as’s own a dmission, the s cene was “hectic” and “ intense.” As s oon as the officers exited their vehicles, several bystanders, including t w o t hat Officer Barber could identify by nickname, shouted that

someone in or a round Thomas’s vehicle “had a gun.” A ccordingly, Officer Barber asked Thomas to come to the b ack of Thomas’s v ehicle in order to verify whether Thomas posses s e d a firearm. Officer Barber then attempted to conduct a patdown search of Thomas. Viewed together, t hese facts a r e more than sufficient to support Officer Barber’s investigatory stop of Thomas. Thomas’s l o ne argument to the contrary—that eyewitness tips are the equivalent of anonymous tips submitted

o v e r the phone—is not persuasive. This circuit and other circuits h a v e recognized that face-to-face reports are qualitatively different from anonymous, telephoned tips. 4 

### Taking int o a c c ount the recent murder that occurred at the same scene, the fact that a fight was t aking place, the scene’s otherwise hectic and crowded nature, a nd the eyewitness reports that someone in Thomas’s vehicle p ossessed a firearm, Officer Barber had reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop. 5 

### * * * AFFIRMED.

4 E. g. , H op es , 286 F. 3d at 789- 90; U ni t ed Sta tes v
. Hea rd , 367 F. 3d 1275, 1279 ( 11th Cir. 2004) ; U

ni ted Sta tes v
. V

al ent i ne , 232 F. 3d 350, 354- 55 ( 3d Cir. 2000) ; U ni t ed Sta tes v
. Chri stm a s , 222 F. 3d 141, 144- 45 (4th Cir. 2000) ; U ni ted Sta tes v
. Sa l az a r , 945 F .2d 47, 50- 51 ( 2d Cir. 1991) ; U

ni ted Sta tes v
. S i erra - H erna ndez ,581 F. 2d 760, 763 ( 9th C ir. 1978) ; see a l so A da m s v
. Wi l l ia m s , 407 U. S. 143, 146 ( 1972)

.

5 See H op es , 286 F. 3d at 789- 90; U ni ted Sta tes v
. Sa nders , 994 F .2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 7

- 10 ( 5th Cir. 1993) ( hold ing that the hold ing at gunp oint and hand cuf f ing of a rep orted ly “s us p icious ” p ers on w ith a gun w as p erm is s ible und er Terry ) ; s e e a l s o U n i ted Sta tes v
. Conner , 699 F

. 3d 1225, 1230- 32 ( 10th Cir. 2012) ( hold ing that an inves tigatory s top in a high- crim e area bas ed
on a 911 call s tating that the d ef end ant p os s es s ed a gun w as reas onable) ; V a l enti ne , 232 F

. 3d at 352, 356- 57 ( up hold ing an inves tigatory stop in a high- crim e a rea bas ed on a face- to- f ace tip that the inf

orm ant had “jus t s een a m an w ith a gun”)

. 

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