In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 19-2330

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RUMAEL GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 17 CR 00625-1 — Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.

ARGUED MAY 22, 2020 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Rumael Green was indicted for

possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). A security guard stopped and searched Green at a

Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) public housing unit. After

recovering a handgun, the security guard called the Chicago

Police Department. At trial, Green moved to suppress the gun.
2 No. 19-2330

The district court ruled that the security guard was not a state

actor subject to the Fourth Amendment. Green entered a

conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial

of his motion. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The events leading to the indictment occurred on

January 27, 2017, when Green was visiting a friend at a CHA

public housing unit in Trumbull Park. Sirjohn Hudson, a

securityguardemployedbyAGB Investigative Services (AGB),

dropped off another guard before entering the unit. In the

laundry room, Hudson attempted to stop and search Green.

Hudson subdued Green outside the CHA unit and recovered a

handgun before calling the Chicago Police Department.

OnSeptember 21, 2017, a grandjury returnedanindictment

charging Green with possession of a firearm by a felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Green moved to suppress the

gun. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where it

limited the issue to whether Hudson had reasonable suspicion

to justify the search. The court ruled there was no reasonable

suspicion.Laterina memorandum opinionandorder, the court

denied Green’s motion to suppress by holding he had failed to

establish that the private security guard was a government

agent. Green entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved the

right to appeal the denial of his motion.

DISCUSSION

The questiononappeal is whether Hudsonwas a state actor

who is subject to the Fourth Amendment. In reviewing the

district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review legal
No. 19-2330 3

questions de novo and factual findings for clear error. United

States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d 664, 672 (7th Cir. 2018). The Fourth

Amendment is inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an

unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as

an agent of the government or with the participation or

knowledge of any government official.” United States v.

Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (citation omitted).

Green’s primary argument is that the CHA delegated its

municipal police power to AGB, thereby making Hudson a

state actor. However, Illinois law expressly categorizes CHA’s

police powers as distinct from its power to employ security

personnel. 310 ILCS § 10/8.1a. Moreover, the CHA contract in

question labels AGB as an independent contractor to perform

security services including ensuring unauthorized people do

not enter and reporting incidents to the property manager.

We decided this issue with regard to the actions of a CHA

private security guard and see no reason to depart from our

precedent. In Wade v. Byles, 83 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 1996), we held

that a private security guard, even when authorized to use

deadly force in self-defense and arrest trespassers pending

police arrival, was not a state actor. Hudson, like the other

security guards, was contracted to perform private security

functions and acted without any direct government involvement. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.