1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 10- 1656

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AL P HONS O S T E E D, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey N o. 1- 08- cr - 00837- 001 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB . K ugl er

S u b m itt e d P u rsu a n t to T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) Sept ember20, 2010 B e f o re : M c K e e , C hi ef

Judge , A m b ro a n d C h a g a re s , C i rcui tJud ges. (O p inion F il ed : Se p tem b er 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 ) M C K E E , C hi ef

Judge A l ph on so S t eed ap peals t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of h i s m oti on t o sup press evi dence thatw as us ed t o s ecur e hi s convi ct i on forbei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he o rd e r o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .2 I. I nas m uch as w e ar e w r i t i ng pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e nee d notr eci t e the pr ocedur al orfac tual backgr ound of thi s cas e exc epti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. T he di s t r i ctcourthel d a hea r i ng on St eed’ s s uppr es s i on m ot i on and hea r d t he t es t i m onyof O ffi cerL eonar d B r eaux. H e t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s part nerw er e patr ol l i ng a hi gh cr i m e ar ea a t2: 30 a. m . i n pl ai n cl othes and i n an unmar ked pol i ce c ar , w hen they s aw St eed a nd a compani on w al ki ng dow n t he s t r eetabouts even orei ghtcarl engths a h e a d o f th e m . T h e m e n c a u g h t th e o f f ice rs’ a tten tio n b e c a u se th e yw e re th e o n lyp e o p le on t he s tr eet . W hen St eed’ s compani on s aw the ca r , he s t opped and i m m edi at el ys t ar t ed w a lk in g in th e o th e r d ire c tio n . S tee d , w h o h a d b e e n w a lk in g a n d talk in g o n h is c e ll p h o n e, th en y ell ed into h is ph o n e: “C o m e a n d g et m e o u t of h ere . I go t t o g et ou t of h ere now . I ’ m on Si xt eenth St r eet . ” Supp. A pp. at25. T he off i cer s dr ove up t o St eed; B r eaux i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as a pol i ce of fi cerand as ked t o s peak t o St eed. St eed i ni t i al l ycompl i ed a n d b e g a n w a lk in g to w a rd th e p o lice o f f ice r. H o w e v e r, w h e n h e g o t ab o u t h a lf -w a yto the unmar ked ca r , St eed dr opped the phone a nd “t ook off runni ng s out h bound. ” Id . at 26. A s St eed w as runni ng, B r eaux s aw hi m “cl ut chi ng orhol di ng hi s w ai s t , ” and Bre aux y el l ed forhi m t o s t op. St eed i gnor ed the off i cerand r an i nt o an empt yl ot . D ur i ng the ens ui ng pur s ui t , St eed s l i pped and w as appr ehende d aft erthe pur s ui ng offi cer s t ackl ed hi m t o the gr ound. B r eaux t es t i fi ed thatther e w er e no l um ps i n St eed’ s cl othi ng, butheB r eaux a dded that , i n hi s ei ght een y ear s of expe r i ence as a pol i ce of fi cer , he had 1 l earned thatper s ons w ho cl ut ched thei rw ai s t , as St eed w as doi ng, w er e oft en ca r r y i ng w e a p o n s in th e irw a is tb a n d . 3 s a w a g u n a s S te e d w a s b e in g ta c k le d to th e g ro u n d . Id . at30. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, B r eaux s t at ed thathe bec ame sus pi ci ous thats om ethi ng w as w r ong w hen St eed’ s compani on turned and w al ked aw ay , and w hen St eed be gan y e llin g in to h is c e ll p h o n e . Id . at43. A tthatpoi nt , B r eaux w ant ed more i nform at i on, w h ic h w a s w h yh e a s k e d S te e d to a p p ro a c h th e u n m a rk e d p o lic e c a r. I d. B r eaux t es t i fi ed on cr os s - exami nat i on t hathe di d noti dent i fyhi m s el f as a pol i ce of fi cerunt i l he bega n g e ttin g o u t o f

th e c a r, a n d th a t h is b a d g e w a s n o t v is ib le . Id . at40, 43. W hen St eed began runni ng and dr opped hi s cel l phone, B r eaux s us pect ed thathe w as i nvol ved i n a cr i m e bec aus e St eed w as hol di ng hi s w ai s ti n a mannerthats ugges t ed thathe w as tr y i ng to h o ld o n to a w e a p o n . I d. a t 4 6 . O n c e th e o f

f ice rs s a w th e g u n , the yp lac e d S tee d in 1 handcuf fs and one of

t he off i cer s w as then abl e t o s afe l yr emove t he gun fr om St eed a nd p la c e h im u n d e r a rr e s t. Id . at67. T he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded thatSt eed r ecogni zed the unmar ked ca ras a pol i ce veh i cl e, and defe nse cou nsel did not coun t er the ch aract eri zat i on of the neighbo rhood as a “hi gh cr i m e” a r ea. T he di s t r i ctcour tagr eed thatSt eed’ s behavi orw as “unus ual , ” and concl uded thatt hatw as s uffi ci entevi dence t o al l ow the pol i ce t o i nves t i gat e furt her . T he cour tacc ept ed B r eaux’ s acc ountof s eei ng St eed hol di ng hi s w ai s ti n a mannerthat s ugges t ed thathe ( St eed) w as carr y i ng a fi r earm as he r an. A ccor di ngl y , the courtrul edT h e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a d s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 3 1 a n d we 2 have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs o f f a c ti s f o rc l e a re r r o r ; o u rr e v i e w o f th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w i s p l e n a ry. U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 9 2 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 6 -47 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). 4 thatthe pol i ce w er e j us t i fi ed i n br i ngi ng St eed t o t he gr ound s o t hattheycoul d fur t her in v e stig a te. D u rin g th e c o u rse o f d o in g so , the ysa w S tee d ’s g u n in p lain v iew tu c k e d in hi s w ai s tband. S tee d w a s a rre ste d f

o r illeg a llyp o ss e ss in g a f ire a rm a n d w a s s u b se q u e n tly convi ct ed byt he courti n a w ai vert r i al on s t i pul at ed fa ct s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 2 II. I n T e rr y v . O h io , the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at brief inv esti g ati v e sto p s w ere “s ei zur es ” s ubj ectt o Four t h A m endmentpr ot ect i on, and thata pol i ce of fi cerm ayconduct s uch a s t op onl yi f the off i cercan “ poi ntt o s peci fi c and a r t i cul abl e fa ct s w hi ch, t aken t ogetherw i t h r at i onal i nfer ence s fr om thos e fa ct s , r eas onabl yw arr antthati ntrus i on. ” 392 U . S . 1 , 2 1 (19 6 8 ). U n d er T erry , w e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne w hen St eed w as s ei zed a nd “then w hether th a ts e i z u r e wa s j u s t i f

i e d b yr e a s o n a b l e , a r t i c u l a b l e f a c t s k n o wn t o [ Br e a u x ] [ a tth a t ] t i me thati ndi cat ed that[St eed] w as engage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y . ” J o h n so n v . C a m

p b e ll , 332 F .3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). In ju d g in g th e re a so n a b len e ss o f sto p s, c o u rts m u st a sk if “the fa ct s avai l abl e t o t he off i ceratthe mom entof the s ei zur e . . . w arr anta [pe r s on] of r eas onabl e ca ut i on i n t he bel i ef thatcr i m i nal act i vi t ym aybe af oot . ” Id . ( ci t i ng T

erry , 3925

U . S. at21- 22, 30) . A n offi ceri s perm i t t ed t o dr aw i nfer ence s and deduc t i ons fr om pr i or e x p e ri e n c e a n d tr a in in g . U nited S tates v. A rvi

zu , 5 3 4 U . S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 (20 0 2 ). T h e inq u iry into the rea so n ab lene ss o f a n o ff icer’s stop u n d er T

erry turns on “the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C or t ez , 4 4 9 U . S . 4 1 1 , 4 1 7 (19 8 1 ). “It i s the S tat e’s b u rd e n to d e m o n stra te th a t th e se izu re it se e k s to ju stif yo n th e b a sis o f

a re a so n a b le s us pi ci on w as s uffi ci ent l yl i m i t ed i n s cope a nd dur at i on t o s at i s fythe condi t i ons of an i nves t i gat i ve s ei zur e. ” F l or i da v. R oyer , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 9 1 , 5 0 0 (1 9 8 3 ). H ere , S teed an d the g o v ern m en t agre e tha t he w as n o t “seize d ” f o r Ter r y purpos es u n til h e w a s ta c k led . A lth o u g h S tee d a lso a rg u e s th a t th e o f f ice rs w e re u n

ju stif ied in chas i ng hi m , t he Four t h A m endmenti s noti m pl i cat ed unt i l a s ei zur e occ ur s . St eed c o n c e d e s a s m u c h . H e a ls o c o n c e d e s th a t th is d id n o t h a p p e n u n til h e w a s ta c k le d . See i d. a t 4 9 7 -4 8 (e x p la in in g w h e n a s e iz u re o c c u rs ). T he governm entar gues t hatthe fol l ow i ng fac t or s w er e s uffi ci entt o cr eat e the r eas onabl e s us pi ci on r equi r ed fora T erry s t op: ( 1) St eed w as i n a hi gh cr i m e ar ea l at e at n ig h t; (2 ) h e a n d a n o th e r m a le w e re th e o n lyp e o p le o n th e stre e t; (3 ) h e a n d a n o th e r m a le w a lk e d in o p p o site d ire c tio n s u p o n se e in g th e u n m a rk e d p o lice c a r; (4 ) h e y e lled in to h is cel l phone fors om eone t o “come and get ” hi m ; ( 5) he i ni t i al l ym oved t ow ar d t he unm arked ca rbutt hen dr opped hi s cel l phone and r an; ( 6) he hel d hi s s i de as he r an; and ( 7) t he handl e of the gun w as vi s i bl e as he w as fal l i ng t o t he gr ound befor e he w as t ackl ed.Forexampl e, w e ar e s kept i cal aboutthe r el evanc e of r el y i ng on t he fa ctthat 3 S tee d a n d h is c o m p a n io n w e re th e o n lyo n e s o n th e stre e t. M o re o v e r, b ya ttem p tin g to a lso re lyo n th e late n e ss o f th e h o u r, th e f

a c t th a t th e yw e re th e o n lyo n e s o n th e stre e t is actual l ycount ed tw i ce. I ti s fai rt o as s um e thattheyw er e the onl yones on t he s t r eet b e c a u s e o f

th e h o u r. It is n o t c le a r w h e th e r t h e o f f ic e rs a c tu a lly sa w th e g u n b e f o re S te e d w a s ta c k le d . 4 U nderN ew J er s eyl aw , pos s es s i on of a f i r earm underthes e ci r cumst ance s i s pr es um ed ille g a l. See N . J. S TAT . A NN . § § 2 C :3 9 -2 (b ) a n d 2 C :3 9 -5 . St eed a l s o ar gues t hatt he governm entfai l ed t o al l ege orpr ove thathi s pos s es s i on 5 of the fi r earm aff

ect ed i nt er s t at e comm er ce. H ow ever , he w i s el yconce des thatthi s i s s ue is s e ttle d a g a in s t h im a n d th a t h e is m e re ly m a k in g h is a rg u m e n t to p re s e rv e it. See U nited S tates v. Singl etary , 268 F. 3d 196, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I ti s pr es erved. 6 A l though w e do notagr ee thatal l of thes e fa ct or s ar e r el evant , w e do agr ee that 3 the t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s s uppor ta r eas onabl e s us pi ci on on t he partof the pol i ce offi cer s t hatj us t i fi ed thei reff or t s t o i nves t i gat e. O nce theyactual l ycaughtSt eed s o that theycoul d conductan i nves t i gat i on, the gun i n hi s w ai s tband w as cl ear l yvi s i bl e. A tt hat p o in t, w h a t h a d o n lyb e e n a re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to in v e stig a te r o se to p ro b a b le c a u se to a rr e s t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B onner , 3 6 3 F . 3 d 2 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 A ccor di ngl y , w e bel i eve i ti s cl earunderourdeci s i on i n B onnerthat the o ff icers w ere justi fied in stop p ing S teed u n d er T erry , an d th a t o n c e th e yd id , the yh a d p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es thi m fort he gun thattheys aw dur i ng the cour s e of the s t ruggl e ( i f not b ef o re). I I I . F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, w e w il l aff irm the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f S teed ’s s uppr es s i on m ot i on. 5