Opinion ID: 621564
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion for the Frisk

Text: In the present case, we agree with the district court that the protective frisk was supported by Officer Roncska’s reasonable suspicion that Stennis was armed and dangerous. At the suppression hearings, Officer Roncska credibly explained that he believed a frisk was justified for two reasons—first, he observed a bulge in Stennis’ groin area he believed was consistent with a weapon, and second, he possessed prior knowledge of Stennis based on an earlier, unrelated investigation. This encounter led Officer Roncska to believe that Stennis trafficked in drugs and carried weapons on his person. The officer’s perception of a bulge suspected to be a weapon provides reasonable suspicion that the individual may be armed and dangerous. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 112 (1977); United States v. Frazier, 249 F. App’x 396, 403 (6th Cir. 2007). In addition, an officer may draw upon his experience as a law enforcement agent, including his knowledge of a particular suspect. See Campbell, 549 F.3d at 371; United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 354–55 (6th Cir. 2005). In this case, Officer Roncska explained that he believed that Stennis might be armed and dangerous because he observed a rigid bulge in Stennis’ pants and because he recognized Stennis from a previous encounter. Regardless of the minor inconsistencies in Officer Roncska’s testimony, 7 No. 10-5835 an independent review of the videotape of the traffic stop confirms both of Officer Roncska’s explanations. First, the moment when Officer Roncska noticed the bulge is amply evident on the videotape. As Officer Roncska assisted Stennis into his wheelchair, the two men were engaged in a cordial conversation. However, after Stennis wheeled himself slightly away from the car and while Officer Roncska’s eyes were focused on Stennis’ waist, Officer Roncska’s demeanor and tone abruptly changed. Officer Roncska brusquely asked Stennis if he had anything “in there” while indicating Stennis’ waist area and quickly initiated the search. Coupled with the testimony Officer Roncska provided at the hearing, we find that the district court did not err in crediting Officer Roncska’s testimony that he observed a suspicious bulge in Stennis’ pants. Moreover, the tape supports Officer Roncska’s explanation that he recognized Stennis from the beginning of the traffic stop. When Officer Roncska first approached Stennis’ vehicle, he engaged Stennis in a lengthy conversation about his address on Riverside Drive, an address that according to the testimony at both suppression hearings, Officer Roncska had visited in connection to investigating the domestic dispute between Aaron and Joyce. Moreover, after frisking Stennis and placing him under arrest, Officer Roncska informed Stennis and Stennis’ wife that he recognized them. Stennis’ wife stated that she recognized Officer Roncska from the prior occasion when he visited their home. Officer Roncska told Stennis that he suspected Stennis would be carrying drugs and weapons based on tips from Stennis’ “crackhead” clients. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s decision to credit Officer Roncska’s basic account that he had prior knowledge of Stennis’ criminal activities. 8 No. 10-5835 Stennis’ defense hinges on inconsistencies revealed in Officer Roncska’s testimony at the initial suppression hearing versus the events of the incident with Aaron and Joyce captured on the late filed DVD. Officer Roncska’s testimony at the suppression hearing differed from the DVD in four main respects: (1) Officer Roncska testified that the incident with Aaron and Joyce occurred about a month before the traffic stop, when there was actually about a three-month gap; (2) Officer Roncska testified that Joyce identified her supplier as “Ernest,” when the tape showed she stated her supplier’s name was “Pete”; (3) Officer Roncska testified that Joyce told him her supplier was in a wheelchair, while the DVD shows that she stated the man was “crippled”; and (4) Officer Roncska testified that Joyce informed him specifically that the man carried guns in his pants, but the DVD shows that Joyce only stated that Pete was “armed” and that she was fearful of what Pete would do if he found out she had informed on him to the police. As the district court correctly explained, these discrepancies are minor and inconsequential when compared to the facts pertinent to our reasonable suspicion analysis. Officer Roncska testified truthfully and consistently that he had, in recent months, investigated an incident which provided him with reason to believe that Stennis sold or used crack cocaine, that he carried a gun, and that he would threaten those who interfered with his criminal activities. Significantly, Stennis does not question that this prior interaction with Officer Roncska, in fact, occurred. Stennis also does not allege that Officer Roncska misidentified him during the traffic stop. Ultimately, despite the minor inconsistencies in Officer Roncska’s testimony, the basic information possessed from this uncontested incident, coupled with the observation of a bulge in Stennis’ pants, provided the officers with specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion to conduct the protective frisk. 9 No. 10-5835