United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2385

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Fahad Abdihakim Diriye

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: November 20, 2015

 Filed: March 16, 2016

____________

Before SMITH, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Fahad Abdihakim Diriye pled guilty in district court to being a felon in 1

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). As a

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Court Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
condition of his guilty plea, Diriye reserved the right to argue on appeal that law

enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights by performing a Terry stop

without reasonable suspicion. We find law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to

perform a Terry stop. We affirm. 

I

On the evening of June 25, 2014, Minneapolis Police officers, including

Officer Scott Aikins, responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle in the parking lot

at ThomasBeach near Lake Calhoun. The suspicious vehicle matched the description

and license plate of a vehicle connected to an armed home invasion and robbery that

occurred in downtown Minneapolis three days prior. There were no suspects in

custody at the time. The dispatch stated there were two people sleeping in the car. 

Three marked squad cars arrived at the scene and parked approximately one to

two car-lengths away from the car. Officers removed a male and female from the

vehicle, handcuffed them, and placed them into a squad car. At least seven law

enforcement officers, including Officer Aikins, were standing nearby awaiting the

arrival of a sergeant for instructions to search the suspect vehicle. Approximately

fifteen minutes passed after officers arrived on scene when Diriye approached the

suspect vehicle, opened the driver's door, and began to sit in the driver's seat. At this

point, the suspect vehicle had not been searched or secured. Officer Aikins and

another officer immediately approached the vehicle, ordered Diriye out ofthe vehicle,

and handcuffed him. 

While Diriye and Officer Aikins were standing next to the vehicle, Diriye

appeared to be continuously turning his body to keep his rightside away from Officer

Aikins. Officer Aikins became suspicious Diriye may have had a gun and patted him

down. Officer Aikins immediately felt and removed a loaded handgun from Diriye's

-2-
right pants pocket. Diriye was then taken into custody. While in custody, Diriye

made incriminating statements to law enforcement about possessing the firearm.

Diriye waslater charged in the District of Minnesota in an indictment with one

count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and

924(a)(2). Diriye filed a motion to suppress the firearm and a motion to suppress his

post-arrest statements. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied

both motions to suppress. 

Following the district court's denial of his suppression motions, Diriye entered

into a conditional plea of guilty. Diriye reserved the right to appeal the district court's

denial of his motions to suppress. On June 15, 2015, Diriye was sentenced to a term

of imprisonment of 70 months. Ten days later, Diriye timely filed this appeal.

II

Diriye argues Officer Aikins lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry

stop when Diriye, a non-suspect, opened the door and started to enter a vehicle

remotely connected to an armed home invasion and robbery that had occurred three

days prior. Diriye therefore claims his stop was unlawful and the district court erred

by not suppressing the evidence obtained as a result of his unlawful stop. We

disagree. 

"We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but the underlying

factual determinations for clear error, giving due weight to inferences drawn by law

enforcement officials." United States v. Hurd, 785 F.3d 311, 314 (8th Cir. 2015)

(quoting United States v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980, 982 (8th Cir. 2012)). Under Terry

v. Ohio, an officer may stop an individual if the officer has reasonable suspicion that

"criminal activity may be afoot." 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); United States v. Harris, 747

F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2014). A Terry stop is justified when a police officer is

-3-
"able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational

inferencesfromthose facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry, 392 U.S. at 21;

United States v. Davison, 808 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir. 2015). We must determine

whether reasonable suspicion exists based on "the totality of the circumstances, in

light of the officer's experience." United States v. Stigler, 574 F.3d 1008, 1010 (8th

Cir. 2009). 

We find Officer Aikins had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop on

Diriye. Diriye bypassed an active crime scene to enter and sit in a suspect vehicle not

yetsecured orsearched by law enforcement. Further, the suspect vehicle matched the

description of a vehicle connected to an armed invasion and robbery three days prior. 

Based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Aikins had reasonable suspicion

to believe criminal activitywas afoot by Diriye's blatant disregard for the active crime

scene by sitting in the suspect vehicle connected to recent criminal activity. We

therefore find the Terry stop was justified and the district court did not err in denying

Diriye's motions to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his lawful stop. See

United States v. Cotter, 701 F.3d 544, 548 (8th Cir. 2012) ("Because the Terry stop

was proper, the district court also did not err in refusing to suppress . . . [the]

confession, as it was not the fruit of the poisonous tree.").

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court.

______________________________

-4-