2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-7-2009 

# U SA v . F r anky N a d al P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-1345

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . F r a nk y Na d al " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 136. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/136

### - 1- 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- 1345

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. FRAN KY NA DA L, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt of t he V i r gi n I s l ands , D i vi s i on of St . T hom as and St . J ohn

( D . C . N o. 08- cr - 00047) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ur t i s V . G om ez

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

D ece m ber4, 2009 Be f o r e : M CK EE, F U E N T E S , a n d N Y G A A R D , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber7, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A p p e llan t F ra n k yN a d a l ap p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g d e n y in g h is

### - 2-

m o tio n to su p p re ss e v id e n c e se ize d d u rin g a n in v e stig a to ryse a rc h c o n d u c ted p u rsu a n t to T e rr y v . O h io , 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) . For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. I. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231 

### and we have juri sdic ti onto hear this appealun der 28 U .S.C. § 12 91 . W e r evie w a distri ct c ourt ’ s fa c t

ua lfi ndi ngs for

c l e ar e rr or and e xe r c i s e pl e nary

r e vi e w ove r

i t s de t e rm i nat i on that a T errysto p d idn o t v io late th e F o urthA m en dm en t. Se eUni te d States v . Robe r s on , 9 0 F .3 d7 5 , 7 7 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 6 ). II. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e di s cus s t he fa ct s onl yt o t he ext ent n e c e ss a ryf

o r re so lu tio n o f

th e iss u e o n a p p e a l. N ad al w as c h arg ed in a th ree co u n t i n d ict m en t ari sing fro m the 2 0 0 8 arm ed rob b ery o f E m b e rs G u e st H o u se (“ E m b e rs H o u se ” ) in S t. T h o m a s, V irg in Isla n d s. O f f -d u ty O ffi cerK el vi n V enze n w as i n t he vi ci ni t yof Em ber s H ous e and he ar d a r epor tovert he r a d i o r e g a r d i n g t h e a r me d r o b b e r y . T h e r e p o r ta l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a ts h o t s we r e f i r e d . He i nfor m ed ce nt r al di s pat ch of hi s l ocat i on and pul l ed hi s cari nt o t he C l earV i ew A par t m ent ’ s par ki ng l ot , w hi ch w as l ocat ed nea rE m ber s H ous e, t o obs er ve vehi cl es and per s ons l eavi ng t he ar ea f r om w hi ch the s hot s w er e fi r ed. T her e, O ffi cerV enze n, w ho w as i n pl ai n- cl ot hes , obs er ved an i ndi vi dual dr i ve dow n t he r oad fr om t he di r ect i on of

### - 3-

E m b e rs H o u se w ith th e c a r’s h e a d lig h ts o f f , p u ll i n to th e p a rk in g lo t an d p u sh h is s e a t in to a r ecl i ni ng pos i t i on. O ffi cerV enze n t hen ca l l ed forback- up. A ft erback- up arr i ved, O f f ice r V e n z e n a n d tw o u n if o rm e d o f f ice rs a p p ro a c h e d th e v e h icle a n d o rd e re d its occupa nt s out . N adal i ni t i al l yhes i t at ed and di d notgetourof t he ca r ; i n tur n, one of the offi cer s dr ew hi s w eapon. N adal t hen gotoutof hi s carand the off i cer s pat t ed hi m dow n, lo c a tin g a f

ir e a rm . N adal w as char ged w i t h bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) an d 1 4 V . I. C . § 2 2 5 3 (a). A fter h o lding a h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed N adal ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he gun. N adal then ent er ed a c ondi t i onal pl ea of g u ilty, re s e rv in g h is ri g h t to a p p e a l th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 1 4 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. 

### III. Na da lc ha l l e nge s the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s r ul i ng de nyi ng hi s m ot i on t o s upr e s s the gun o nth e g ro un d s th at th e w arran tless searchan dseizure v io latedth e F o urthA m en dm en t. See Ap p ellan t’s B r. at 4 . Wh ile w arran tless search es an dseizures are g en erally p er se unreaso n ab le un d er th e F o urthA m en dm en t, se e Un i te d States v . W i ll i am s , 413 F. 3d 347, 351 ( 3d Ci r . 2005) , the r e ar e s e ve r a le xc e pt i ons t o thi s r ul e . I nve s t i gat ory

s e ar c he s and se izures can b e justi fied if of fice rs have “a r ea sonable, arti cula ble s uspici onthat

criminal ac ti vity m ay be afoo t. ” I

ll i noi s v . W ardlow , 528 U. S. 119, 123, ( 2000) ( c i t i ng T erry , 392 U. S. at 30) . Re a s onabl e s us pi c i on r e qui r e s “ ‘ s om e m i ni m a ll e ve lof obje c t i ve

### - 4-

ju st ific at ion’ fo r m aking the st op .” A la b a m a v. Wh ite, 496 U. S. 325, 329- 30 ( 1990) ( quot i ng I NS v . De l gado , 466 U. S. 210, 217 ( 1984) ) . “ Thi s i s al owe r hur dl e than the prob able ca

use nec es sary

to ob ta in a s earc h w ar

rant, given the l es se r i nf

ri ng em ent on an individu al ’s liberty . [P] robable c ause m eans a fai r probabili ty that contra bandor evidence of a c ri m e wil l be found , andthe l evelof suspic ion require d f

or a T errysto p is o b v io u sly less d em an d in g th anf

o r p ro b ab le cau se. Wh ile th e stan d ard s are d if f eren t, b o th r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on and pr obabl e c aus e r e qui r e the Court t o c ons i de r

the t ot a l i ty

of the ci rc um st ance s. ” Uni te d States v . Si lv e us , 542 F.3d99 3, 99 9-10 00 (3d C ir . 200 8) (i nter nal citatio nan dqu o tatio no m itted ). Nadal c on te nd s that the Distri ct Co urt s houl d have s uppr es s ed the fi r earm beca us e, undert he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , t he off i cer s di d nothave a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on th a t cr im in a l ac tiv ityw a s a f o o t, ren d e rin g th e in v e stig a to rysto p a n d f risk u n c o n stitu tio n a l. T hi s ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve. T he D i s t r i ctC our tbas ed i t s rul i ng on t he fur t i ve beha vi or N adal engage d i n j us tpr i ort o t he T erry s t op and fr i s k. A ft erhear i ng t es t i m ony , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatN adal w as obs er ved byO ffi cerV enze n dr i vi ng fr om t he ar ea w h e re th e c rim e w a s c o m m itt e d w ith h is h e a d lig h ts o f f. (A p p . 8 0 ). N a d a l th e n p a rk e d h is carand r ecl i ned hi s chai rs o t hathe w oul d notbe r eadi l yvi s i bl e t o any one l ooki ng i ns i de th e c a r. ( A p p . 8 0 ). T h is o c c u rr e d a t 1 0 :3 0 p m , s h o rt ly af te r t h e a rm e d ro b b e ry o c c u rr e d . ( A pp. 80) . C ons i der i ng t he t ot al i t yof t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded th a t N a d a l e x h ib ite d s u rr e p titio u s b e h a v io r a im e d a t a v o id in g p o lic e d e te c tio n . (A p p . 8 1 ).

### - 5-

N ext , t he courtal s o found i tr eas onabl e thatone of the off i cer s dr ew hi s w eapon w hen he dem and ed thatN adal getou tof the car because N adal had alr eadyi gn ored t he fir st co m m an d to ex itthe c ar a n d b ec au se th e o ff icers w ere resp o n d ing to an arm ed rob b ery du ri ng w hich shot s w ere fi red. (A pp . 81 ). T hu s, un der t he tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ru le d th e in v e s tig a to ry st o p a n d f ri s k c o n s titu tio n a l. N adal does notchal l enge the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs pers e. R ather , he cont ends t hatt he fa ctual fi ndi ngs do notdo notr ai s e the s pect erof cr i m i nal act i vi t ys i nce p a rk in g a c a r a t 1 0 :3 0 p m a n d re c lin in g in th e c a r’ s s e a t is n o t o u t o f th e o rd in a ry. See A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 15 . W e c an n o t agre e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtcre d it ed O ff icer V en ze n ’s t es t i m onyt hathe obs er ved N adal dr i vi ng fr om t he cr i m e s cene w i t h hi s headl i ght s off a nd t hen ent era parki ng l otand r ecl i ne i n hi s chai r , r ender i ng hi m s el f hi dden. T hes e fi ndi ngs o f f a c twe r e n o tc l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s . T h u s , u n d e rt h e t o t a l i t yo f t h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we cann ot concl ud e t hat the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed w hen i tden i ed N adal’ s m oti on t o sup press th e f ir e a rm . Fi nal l y , beca us e he di d notr ai s e i tbefor e the D i s t r i ctC our tdur i ng t he s uppr es s i on hear i ng, N adal w ai ved hi s ar gum entt hatt he t i p w hi ch l ed t o t he s t op and fr i s k s houl d be d is c o u n te d b e c a u s e it la c k e d th e h a llm a rk s o f re lia b ility. 

### S

ee U n ited Sta tes v. R o se , 538 F .3 d1 7 5 , 1 7 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (p ursu an t to F ed . R . C rim . P . 1 2 an dab sen t g o o dcau se, a criminaldefend ant who fail s t o rai se a r ea son to sup pres s e vidence before the Dis tric t C o urt w aiv es th e issu e o nap p eal). N ad al d o es n o t o f f er any reaso nf o r h is f ailure to raise

### - 6-

thi s i s s ue be for e the Di s tr i c t Court . The r e for e , the t ip c annot s e rve a s the ba s i s for rev ersin g th e D istrict C o urt’s ru lin g th at th e inv estig ato ry sto p an df

riskd idn o t v io late th e F o urthA m en dm en t. IV . F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o urt.