Opinion ID: 2821306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Darling’s Motion to Suppress

Text: Darling moved to suppress the gun as seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop the car or probable cause to search the car. On July 14, 2014, following a suppression 3 Case: 14-14930 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 4 of 8 hearing, the district court denied Darling’s motion to suppress as to the stop and search of the car. At the hearing, the district court specifically found Officer Sexton’s testimony to be credible. The district court stated that Officer Sexton had a reasonable suspicion to stop the car based on the “totality of the circumstances— the vehicle, the location, the timing, the identity of the individual, the clothing he was wearing, combined with the other suspicious circumstances, the way they were executing the turn, their reaction to the officer when they first spotted him and he first spotted them.” In addition to these factors, the district court pointed to Darling’s statement that he was being chased by someone with a gun as supporting a finding of probable cause. Darling’s statement corroborated the information given on the 911 call and linked him “back to the very episode for which the vehicle was being stopped.” Thus, the district court found that the officers had probable cause to search the car and look for the gun.