2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-15-2014

USA v. Chezaree Hall

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 12-2665

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Chezaree Hall" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 71.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/71
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 6, 2014

Before: SMITH, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 15, 2014)

_____________________

 OPINION

_____________________ 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

On a cool fall morning in September of 2010, law enforcement 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 the 
2

house with her two minor sons, her significant other, Leon Stanton, and his minor 

daughter. 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 claimed 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 scene 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 failing 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 concerned that guns -- suspected of being in the house --

might now be in the pocketbook, he advised Hall that he needed to take her 

pocketbook. The weight of the pocketbook heightened his concern, and when the 

detective opened it, he found two guns and a bag containing drugs.

Hall unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from her 

pocketbook, claiming that the search warrant did not authorize searching her. The 

District Court concluded that the warrant was irrelevant as the detective had 
3

searched the pocketbook because he had a “reasonable suspicion that she was 

armed and dangerous.” Supp. app. 51. Thereafter, Hall proceeded to trial and a 

jury convicted her of 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 possessing 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, 633 F.3d 219, 

230 (3d Cir. 2011). The District Court did not err. The detective’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.