## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3257 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A R NOL D B RE WER, D e f e ndan t

- Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di stric tC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stric to f Indian a, S outh Bend D iv isi on. No . 3:07- cr -00123- RL M- 1

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 27, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 2, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu itJudg e . Th e d efe n d an t a p p ea ls fro m h is c o n v i c t i o n f o r i l l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n o f a g u n, f o r whi ch he w as se n te nced to si x yea rs i n pri son. The o nl y quest i on pr es en te d b y hi s appe ali s whethe r he was s to pped wi th

o ut r ea so na bl e su spi ci o n, f o r i t was i n th e co ur se of th e s t o p t ha tthe g unwa s di s c o v e r e d. I t w as 2: 30 a. m . w hen a So uth Bend po lice o f fi cer nam ed Tutino was to l d by the di spatcherthatther e was a fi g hta t th e Bea co n Hei g ht s a par tmentco m pl ex , a g r o up2 N o. 08

- 3257 of som e 30- odd bui l dings re now ned f orcr i m i nal i ty

— shot s ar e fi re d there thre e or f our ti m es a w eek

. A s T u tin o, par k ed ne arthe c o m pl ex b ec au se o fi ts b ei nga fr eque nt si te o fc r i m e, pr epa r ed to r es po nd to th e di spa tc h, he he ard a pop p ing sou nd that he believed w as gu n fi re c om in g f r o m th e c om p lex . W ith in m in u te s h e w as to ld b y the di s pa t c he r tha ti nd e e d s ho ts h a d b e e n fi r e d. Dri vi ng tow ar d the co m ple x on the o nl y s tr eetby wh i ch one can ent er o r lea ve it, Tuti no was passe d by a wh i te SUV com i ng f ro m the opposi te dir ecti on. It w as

— unsurpr i si ng l y g i ve n the ho ur

— the o nl y v ehi cl e o n th e r o ad. He r adi oed to o th ero f fi ce r s to wat chf o r the whi te S UV. W h en T u tin o re ac h ed th e c om p lex , bys ta n d er s t old h i m ab o u tth e s ho t s a n d th a tth e y h a d b e e n fi r e d fr o m a w hit e SU V
. H e rad ioed th e inform ation to his d ispa tch er, but by the t i me t he i nf o r mat i o n wa s r e c e i v e d a nd t r a nsm i tt ed an o th erpo l i ce offi ce r ha d s to pped th e S UV, w hic h w as dri ven by the defe nd ant. The o f fi ceras ked the defendant w hetherhe had a gun, and he adm i tte d th athe had tw o, on e i n the c ara nd o ne o n h i s per so n. St i l l o th er fi r ea r m s wer e f o und i n th e ca r, th o ug h th ere is no evide n c e th at th e shot s hea rd by Tu tino an d others cam e fro m any ofthe defe nd ant’ s weapons. S i nc e the s t o p wa s ma de b e f o r e the o f fi c e r wh o ma de the s top l ear ned that som eone i n the B eaco n H ei ghts apart m ent c om ple x had sai d that th e sh ots had bee n fi red from a car that m atch ed the d efend a n t ’s , that report c an n ot be used to j usti fy the st op. “The r eas onabl eness o fo f fi ci als us pi ci on m us t be meas ur ed by whattheN o. 08

- 3257 3 offi cer s knew bef or e they c onducted thei r sea rch. ” Fl or i da v. J
. L. , 52 9 U .S. 26 6, 27 1 (2 00 0); Ter ry v. O hio , 392 U
. S. 1, 21

- 22 ( 19 68 )

. W i th ou t tha t r epo r t, the c as e i s o n the l i ne b e t we e n re as o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n a n d p u r e h u n c h, b u twe th in k t h at in t h e u n u su a l circ u m st an c es p re se n te d it m ee ts the t es t f o r r ea so na bl e su spi ci o n. I t w as a naturalsur m i se that w hoeve r fi re d the s hots ha d l eft the com p lex, an d the s t r eet th at th e d efend an t’s vehi cl e was dri vi ng o n w as as w e s ai d the o nl y s treet l eadi ng fro m i t, and he was dri vi ng away from r ather than to w ar ds i t. Th e ho ur r ei nfo rce d the s uspici on, si nce f ew pe o pl e ar e o n the r o ad at2 : 30 a. m . a nd, s ur e en o ug h, th ere w as no other traffi c. T ut ino a n d o t he r offi cers w er e about to e n ter the co m ple x, and i fthe gunm an w as n ot th e d riv er of th e w h ite SU V h e w as st ill i n the c om ple x

— ar m ed and danger ous. I t be hoov ed each me mb e r o fth e p o l i c e t e a m t o o b t a i n f o r h i s o wn safety and t hat o fthe othe r offi cer s a s m uch i nfo rm ati on abou t the situ a t io n i n th e com p lex as he cou ld before th ey en te re d it in t h e d a rk . Th e o n ly v eh icle lea vin g it m i ght ha ve been dri ven by an e nti re l y i nnocent perso n who ne ve r th el es s ha d v al ua bl e i nf o r m at i o n. I t i s unexc ep ti o na bl e f o ra po l i ce o ffi ce r t o a ppr o ac h a by st an der o n the s tr ee t an d a skhi m whethe r he kn ow s anythi ng ab out som e m att er thatthe offi ceris i nv es ti g at i ng . The b y st an derdo es n’ t ha ve t o a ns wer the o f fi ce r ’ s que st i o ns

— h e c an tu rn on h is h ee ls a n d w alk aw ay

—but ac cos ti ng an unsuspected bys tander to ask hi m a questi on does notvi ol at e th e F ourth A m endm ent. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D rayt on , 536 U .S. 19 4, 20 0 (2 00 2). T h is is4 N o. 08

- 3257
tr ue ev en tho ugh as a prac tic al m att er the approach of th e pol i ce o f fi cerwil l usual l y c ause the per son acco ste d b y him to st op w a l k i n g . U nite d State s v. B room fi el d, 41 7 F.3d 654 , 656 (7th C ir. 2005). The i ssue i s m or e com pli cate d w hen the offi cerwants to st op a car to as k the dri vero r passenge rs so m ethi ng. Such a sto p i s a gr eat er i ntrusi on o n f reed om o f m ove m ent a nd peace o fm i nd than w hen a pedestrian is accos ted by a p ol i ce o f fi cero n the si dew al k. S ti l l, such st o ps ar e per m i tted when th e ci r cumst an ce s j us ti fy i ng th e c re at ion of a ro ad b loc k a re p re se n t. Se e, e.g ., City of In d i a n a p o l i s v . Ed mond , 5 31 U .S. 32 , 41, 44 (20 00 ); U nited Sta tes v. O ’M a ra , 963 F. 2d 1288 , 12 91- 92 ( 9th Ci r. 19 92) ove rr ule d on other gr ounds by U nited Sta tes v. G ergen , 172 F.3 d 71 9, 7 22 (9t h C ir. 19 99 ); St at ev. Gas co n , 81 2 P. 2d 239, 24 1 (Id ah o 1 99 1); S t a t e v. C la ussen , 52 2 N
. W

. 2d 196, 19 9 ( S

. Da k

. 1 99 4)

. And the Supre m e Cou r t i n Il l i noi s v. Li ds ter, 5 40 U
. S. 41 9, 42 4 ( 2004 ) , upheld a ro adbl ock desi gned not to in te rc ept the cr i m i nal ( a dri verwh o had been i nv olved i n a h it a n d run accid en t a w eek earli er) but to questi on per son s w ho t ra vel ed on the sa m e r oad and m ay ther ef or e hav e o bser ved the cri m e. S ee al so State v. G orneault, 9 18 A .2d 1 20 7, 12 09 (M ain e 2 00 7); Bur ns v. C om m onw ealt h , 5 41 S

. E. 2d 87 2, 8 83

- 84 ( Va. 20 01 )

. The Cou r t sa i d i n Lid stertha t “i t wou ld se em an o m al o us w er e the l aw ( 1) o rdi nari l y t o al l ow p ol i ce fre el y t o see k th e v olu n ta ry co op er at ion of p ed es tr ian s b u t (2 ) ord in ar ily to f orbi d pol i ce to see k s i m i l ar vo l untary co oper ati on f ro m m oto ri sts
. ” 5 40 U
. S. at42 6; see al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. G ood w in , 449 F.3d 76 6, 76 9

- 7 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); U nited St at e s v. Bur t on , 441 F.3d 509 , 511 (7th C ir. 2006).N o. 08

- 3257 5 The g o ve r nm en t i n thi s ca se do es no t se ekt o j us ti fy the st o p o fthe c a r o n t he r a t i o na l e o fthe r o a db l o c k c ase s. N ei therparty m enti ons thos e ca ses , and w e t ake not e o f th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s o bs er va ti o n i n D e l a w a re v. P rou se, 4 4 0 U
. S. 64 8 , 6 5 7( 1 9 7 9 ) , tha ti n e nc o un t e r i nga r o a dbl o ck“ th e m o to r i stc ans ee tha t o th erv eh i cl es a r e be i ng sto pp ed, he can see vi sibl e si gns of the offi cer s’ autho ri ty, and he i s m u c h less l i kel y t o be fri ghtene d or annoy ed b y t h e in tr u sio n .” T h a t w as n ot tru e h er e. B u t itis per ti ne ntt o no te tha t, a s i n Lid ster, t h e p ol i ce i n thi s ca se had a co m pel l i ng r eas on to a sk questi ons ofthe dri ver o r pa ss en g ero fthe s o l e ve hi cl e depa r ti ngf r o m a b ui l di ng co m pl ex i n w hi chs ho ts ha d b ee n fi r ed ( an d no t f o r the fi r stt i m e) , i n o r dert o pr o te ctthe p oli ce offi ce r s who w er e ab o utt o e nt e r the c o mpl e x. And the n a t ur a l fi r st que st i o n t o a skthe dr i ve r was whethe r h e h ad a g un, si nce he m i ght b e the gunm an r atherthan a witness. Thi s ca se i s th us r emot e f r om the “ st an dar dl es s an d unc o ns tr ai ne d” p ol i ce c o nduc t ati ss ue i n D e l awar ev. P rou se, sup ra , wher e th e S upr eme Co ur t forba de th e p ra c tic e o fr a n d om ly st op p in g d riv er s t o c h ec k t h eir d rivi ng l icens e and aut om obile registra t io n w he n th ere was no r ea so n t o s us pec t th e dr i ve r o fha vi ngv i o l at ed an y tr affi c o rdi nance o r othe r l aw . 44 0 U .S

. at66 1. Offi cer Tut i no was no t acting ra ndo m l y i n de ci di ngtha t th e onl y c ar em er gi ng fro m the apa rt m ent c om ple x m om ents a f t e r he he a r d s ho t s f r o m wi t hi n i t s ho ul d b e i nte r c e pt e d. H e cou ld n ot cou nt on being a b le to do th at him self, because he was al one, so h e radi oed ano thero f fi certo ensure thatthe dri ver s o fany vehi cl es l eavi ng the apar tm entc o mpl e x i mm e di a t e l y a f t e r the s ho o t i ngwo ul d b e6 N o. 08

- 3257 sto pp ed and questi oned, and th is w as eas i l y e f f ectuat ed be ca us e th er e was o nl y o ne e xi t f r o m the s ce ne o fthe cri m e. Tutino had thr ee yea rs ’ exper i ence w i th cr i m i nal ac tiv ity in t h e p ar tic u lar h ou sin g c om p l e x , w as p ar ke d in a po si ti o n i n whi ch h e h ad anuno bs tr uct ed vi ew o fthe onl y e xi t fro m the com ple x, hear d g u nfi re , r ecei ved c on firm at ion of a re p o r t o fsh ot s fire d , an d sa w a ve h icle em er ge se c on d s la te r fro m th e com p lex

. T h at ve h icle

— th e wh i t e S UV

— w as the o nl y v ehi cl e on the ro ad at that l ate ho ur i n thi s hi g h c r i m e ar ea, and it was pul l ed o ve r a nd st o pped f o r onl y mom en ts b ef o r e th e o f fi ce r s m ak i ngthe st o p l earn ed thatthe S UV had be ens ee n a t th e si te ofthe shoo ti ng and thatthe occupants m ay have been i nvol ved in the s hoot i ng. Less than a m i nute l ate r th e d efend an t ad m itte d t h a t h e had gun s in the ca r. W hen we c o ns i de r the da ng e r o us ne s s o fthe c r i m e, th e br ev i tyo fthe i nt er va l b et wee n the firi ng o fthe shot s a nd the spott ing o fthe sol e v ehi cl e qui ckl y e xi ti ng, the m i ni m al i ntrusi on o n the occupants ofthe vehi cl e, th e need of the pol i ce to i nfo rm them sel ves of the con d iti ons i n the com ple x bef ore e nd anger i ng the m sel ves by en te r i ngi t i n th e dar k, an d th e fur th er ne ed to s to p po te nti al l y fl ee i ngs us pec ts unt ilmor e i nf o r m at i o n abo utthe cri m e c o ul d b e o b t a i ne d, we c o nc l ud e tha tthe p o l i ce acte d rea sonab l y, and ther ef or e that the j ud gm ent m ust be A FFI RMED .

4- 2- 09