2004 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 9-27-2004 

# U S A v . W i l son 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 . 03-4489

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . W i l s on " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 327. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/3271 NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4489
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. MALEAK WI LSON,

Appellant

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. C rim No . 02-cr-0003 9 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Donett a W. Ambrose

____________ Argued September 21, 2004 Be for e: M cK EE , RO SE NN , and W EIS , Circu it Judges
.

Filed September 27, 2004 Ka ren S. G erlac h, E sq. Argued Office of FederalPublic Defender 1001 Liberty Avenue 1450 Liberty Cente r Pitt sburgh, PA 15222 (App ellant) Bonnie R. Schlueter, Esq. Laura S. Irwin, Esq. M icha el L . Ivo ry, Esq
. Argued Office of US Attorney 700 Grant Str eet Suite 4002

Pitt sburgh, PA 15219 (Appellee)

____________ OPI NION W EIS , Circuit

Judge
. The juryconvict ed defendant of pos sessi on with intent to di stribute cra ckcocaine i n excess of 5 gr ams and with car ry ing two firearms duri ng and in rel ation to drug traf fick ing , all in vio latio n of 21 U .S.C . §§ 8 41( e)a( 1) a nd 8 41( b), a s w ell as 18 U .S.C . § 924©)(1). He w as sentenced to incarcerati on for 322 mo nths.

Immediatel y pr eceding the defendant’ s arre st, Officer Cuiffi , a pol ice patrolman, approached the automobile in which the defendant was a p assenger. He did so in th e be lief, a lbeit mis take n, th at a w arra nt h ad b een issu ed f or th e arr est o f de fen dan t. Befo re Cuiff i arrived at the car, how ever, it sped aw ay. Cuiffi and S ergeant R uggiero later cau ght up w ith th e ca r w hen it w ent o ut o f co ntro l and left th e ro adw ay.

The defendant fl ed from the car and, fol lowing him on foot , Ruggier o saw him apparently hiding s omething i n an area of t rees and dea d vegetation. Afte r further pursuit on foot, de fendant was appre hended. Ruggier o then pointed out to another offi cer the pla ce where Ruggiero s aw defendant appear to concealsomething. A se arch o f the w ood ed are a reve aled tw o gu ns, on e w ith half a grip mis sing , and crac k-c oca ine. A half of a pisto l grip wa s fo und in d efe nda nt’s j ack et.3

Although it

did not mat ch the one mis sing fr om the ret rieved pi stol , it

could have been ada pted for use wit h th at gu n.

After a hearing, t

he District Court

denied a moti on to suppre ss, fi nding Cuiffi’ s ini tialatte mpt to st op the defendant ’s car was reasonabl e based on his belie f that a warrant ha d been iss ued. However, no stop had occurre d because the auto sped a way before the officer

reached i t. The t otali ty of the ci rcumstance s establis hed that the poli ce ha d r ea so na bl e s us pi cio n t ha t d ef en da nt w as en ga ge d i n c rim in al a cti vi ty.

Af ter the trial c onclu ded, th e def enda nt’s m other c ame forw ard w ith alle gations that f

ingerprints on one of the guns were t hose of a fri end of defendant. The Distri ct Court de cline d to tr eat this ass erti on as newly discover ed evidence.

On appeal, defendant raised three issues. 1. Poli ce did not

have reasonable suspi cion to c onduct a st op based on the
unv erif ied a nd m istak en b elief that t her e w as a n ou tstan din g w arra nt ag ains t def end ant.

2. The evidenc e was insuffi cient to prove def

endant poss essed the drugs and carr ied th e gu ns o n w hich fing erp rints of a not her ind ivid ual w ere f oun d.

3. The District

Court abused i ts di scretion by denyi ng a new tria l based on a post- tri al dis coverythat f ingerprints on one of the guns be longed to a friend of t

he def end ant. To constit ute a sei zure for Fourth Amendment purposes, a person must be restrained by

physi cal for ce or bysubmissi on to poli ce authority . In t his cas e, the4

defendant fl ed from the sc ene before confr onting Cuif fi. Conseque ntly , no unla wful stop
occ urre d an d th e of fice r’s ac tion s w ere p erm issib le. See Cal if or ni a v . H odariD. , 499 U.S . 621, 6 22 (1 991 ); United States v. Valent ine , 232 F.3d 350, 358 (3d Cir. 200 0). In any e ven t, the o ffic er’s a ction s w ere r eas ona ble. See United States v. Cortez , 449 U. S. 411 , 418 ( 198 1); United State v. Conley , 4 F.3d 1200, 1207 (3d Cir. 1993). The Dist rict Co urt p rop erly de nied the m otio n to sup pre ss.

The indictment charged t hat the defendant bot

h carri ed and possess ed the guns in connect

ion with dr

ug traffi cking. Ruggiero saw defendant in circumstances t

hat indicated he was tryi ng to concealsomething i n the vacant lot. The police f

ound the guns in that spot onl y a few minut es later as they were l eading the defendant away . Evidence that a def end ant a ttem pted to h ide o r de stroy c ont rab and ma y estab lish p oss essio n. See United States v. J ohnson , 302 F .3d 13 9, 149 (3d C ir. 2002 ); United States v. Cri ppen , 459 F.2d 13 87 (3d C ir. 1972). There was am ple eviden ce in this case to sup port the jury’s
ver dict o n bo th co unt s.

The Distri ct Court pr operlydenied the motion for a new tria l based on alle ged after -disc overed evi dence. At t he tri al, it was es tabli shed that the fi ngerpri nts of someone other than those of the defendant w ere on one of the guns. The jury was, theref ore, aware that at some ti me another i ndividualhad handled the gun. The all eged after-d iscov ered e viden ce tha t revea led the nam e of th e othe r individ ual ad ded s pecif icity5

to the i nformati on alrea dy pr esented to the jur y, but would not have added any thing signi ficant

to the e vidence the juryconsider ed. We are not pe rsuaded that the additi onal evid enc e qu alifie d as new or a fter -disc ove red
. See Un ited Sta tes v. Ian nelli , 528 F.2d 129 0, 12 92 ( 3d C ir. 19 76)
.

Accordingly , the judgment of t he District Court

will be a ffirmed.67