Opinion ID: 2731237
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Tiru's Motion to Suppress His Firearm

Text: Tiru was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence, principally arguing that: (1) the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle or to order Morales to open the hood, requiring suppression of the gun as fruit of an unlawful search; and (2) even if the initial stop and subsequent frisk of Morales were legal, the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion that Tiru was dangerous or engaged in criminal activity, making his pat-frisk unlawful. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who held an evidentiary hearing on October 29, 2012. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation concluded that the initial traffic stop was lawful, and that Tiru lacked standing to challenge the legality 6 One of the car's female passengers offered testimony for the defense contradicting the officers' version of events in certain respects. She stated that after the officers approached the car and asked for Morales's license and registration, they asked Morales if he liv[ed] out there -- presumably referencing a nearby public housing project. The officers then pulled out their weapons, ordered all four occupants from the car, and frisked Morales. An officer st[]uck his hand down [Morales's] pants, and he pulled out a gun, and he started shouting [g]un. Another two officers arrived in a separate patrol car, and they searched [Tiru]. Thus, the testimony offered by the defense, though differing in some respects from the government's narrative, was consistent with the government's evidence that Tiru was pat-frisked only after the officers discovered Morales's firearm. -5- of the officer's attempt to search under the vehicle's hood. However, the magistrate judge ultimately found that, under a totality-of-the-circumstances test, there was no objectively reasonable basis to suspect that Tiru was armed or dangerous. The report therefore recommended suppression. The district court disagreed with the magistrate judge's conclusion as to the totality of the circumstances surrounding Tiru's pat-frisk. The district court found that certain facts are undisputed in this case: the young age7 and number of occupants in the car (four); the late hour (11:00 p.m.); Morales's failure to immediately pull over and stop the car when prompted to do so by the police officers; and the discovery of Morales's gun. On the basis of these factors, the district court found an objectively reasonable basis for the officer's frisk of Tiru. The court thus denied the motion to suppress. Tiru pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to thirty-three months' imprisonment and a supervised-release term of three years. Nevertheless, he reserved the right to seek appellate review of the district court's decision to deny suppression. He now exercises that right. 7 Officer Casiano testified that Morales, the driver, was a young man, and that one of the female passengers was a young lady. Officer Martínez also testified that Morales was [a]nother young man. -6-