2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-15-2014 

# U S A v . C he z a r ee H al l

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 ock e t 12-2665

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . C heza r e e H al l " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 71. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/711 

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 12

- 2665

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CHEZAREE B. HALL,

Appellant

____________ _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2

- 11

- cr - 00473

- 002 District Judge: The Hono rab le William H. Yohn, Jr. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 6, 2014 Befor e: SMITH, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 15, 2014 )

_____________________ OPINION

_____________________ SMITH, Circuit Judge.
On a cool fall morning in Se ptember of 2010, law enforceme nt authorities executed a search warrant of , inter alia , a house situated at 409 West Second Street, Birdsboro, Berks County, Pennsylvania

. Chezaree B. Hall resided in the2



### house with her two minor sons, her significant other, Leon Stanton, and his minor d aughter . Because of concerns about illegal weapons in the residence and because law enforcement authorities “wanted to protect the young children from any violence,” officers awakened Hall and the other residents of the house early in the morning and clai med that they needed to leave the premises because of a natural gas leak. As Stanton and the other residents left the home, he was arrested

. Hall and the children were directed to stand immediately across the street.
A SWAT team member present at the s cene noticed that Hall “was clutching her pocketbook very tightly” with “both arms around it

. ” Finding this conduct suspicious , the SWAT member informed a detective of the Pottstown Police Department . The detective thought it unusual that Hall had taken the time to collect her pocketbook, while fail ing to retrieve a coat for herself or to fully dress her children. Because the detective knew of Stanton’s history of violence and
because the detective was c oncerned that guns

-- suspected of being in the hou se --

m ight now be in the p ocketbook , he advised Hall that he needed to take her pocketbook. The weight of the pocketbook heightened his concern , and w hen the detective opened i t, he found two guns and a bag containing drugs. Hall unsuccessfully moved t o suppress the evidence seized from her
p ocketbook , claiming that the search warrant did not authorize searching her . The District Court concluded that the warrant was irrelevant as the detective had3



### searched the pocketbook because he had a “re a sonable susp icion t hat she was armed and dangerous. ” Supp. app. 51. Thereafter, Hall proceeded to trial and a jury convicted her o f committing two controlled substances offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , (b)(1), 860(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and of pos sessin g a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

. Hall contends the District Court erred in denying her motion to suppress. 1



### “ We review the District Court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual determinations but exercise plenary review over the District Court’s application of law to those facts.” United States v. Stabile , 63 3 F.3d 219, 230 (3d Cir. 2011). The District C ourt did not err. The detect ive ’s search was permissible under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).

1 

### The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.