Opinion ID: 3016620
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts Relevant to the Suppression Claim

Text: On June 24, 2002, at approximately 5:50 pm, two Philadelphia police officers drove past Spivey on the 6200 block of Belfield Street and, according to their testimony, thought that he resembled Aaron Thomas, a man who was wanted by the FBI and the Philadelphia Police Department for bank robbery. The officers were carrying with them a “wanted flyer” containing a color photograph of Thomas’ head, shoulders, and face. The flyer also gave a limited verbal description of Thomas, listing his race (“black”), sex (“male”), weight (“180”), height (“5'9”), hair color (“black”), age (“23”), and date of birth (“4/11/79”). The flyer also stated: Thomas is wanted for the robbery of the Citizens Bank 6234 Stenton Ave. on 4/29/02. His last known addresses are 545 E. Mayland St. and 538 Tulpehocken St. Thomas may frequent the areas of Chew and Washington Lane and Musgrave St. and Washington Lane. He has previous VUFA arrests and should be considered armed and dangerous. After driving past Spivey and agreeing that he resembled Thomas, the officers 2 circled the block to return to where they had initially seen him. While circling the block, one of the officers looked again at the wanted flyer. They then saw Spivey walking away from the spot where they had initially seen him and towards the intersection of Belfield Street with Mayland Street and Chew Avenue. The officers got out of their car and, while Spivey was 15-20 feet away from them, asked him to speak with them. Spivey paused, sighed, looked around, and stated, “I didn’t do anything.” App. at 54, 89. One of the officers explained that he was looking for someone in the area, and Spivey replied, “It’s not me.” Id. at 90. The officers then asked for identification, and Spivey responded that he did not have any and walked towards the officers. According to their testimony, the officers believed that Spivey was an armed and dangerous robbery suspect, so they decided to “pat[] him down for weapons.” Id. at 91. Spivey complied when the police asked him to place his hands on the patrol car, and one of the officers frisked him. The frisk uncovered a gun in Spivey’s back pocket. On September 2, 2003, Spivey was charged in a one-count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On October 3, 2003, Spivey moved to suppress the gun on the grounds that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him. He argued that his appearance did not sufficiently match the description or photograph of Aaron Thomas to give rise to a reasonable suspicion. 3 After a December 5, 2003, suppression hearing, the District Court agreed that Spivey’s appearance was different from the photograph of Aaron Thomas in several respects. For instance, the picture showed Thomas to have a dark complexion, whereas Spivey has a more medium complexion. In addition, Spivey is bald, and the photo showed Thomas with a full head of hair. One of the officers also acknowledged that Spivey has narrower eyebrows than Thomas did in the photograph. Spivey also has a small scar under his left eye, and there was no similar scar visible in the photograph of Aaron Thomas. Most significant, however, was the difference in weight between Thomas and Spivey. The flyer listed Thomas’ weight as 180 pounds, and Spivey stated that he weighed 230 pounds. On the other hand, the District Court noted several similarities between Spivey and the information contained on the flyer. The two men had similar heights (Spivey is 5'8) and are close to the same age (Spivey was 28 years-old at the time). Spivey’s facial hair was also similar to Thomas’ facial hair in the photograph. The most significant similarity between Spivey and the photo of Thomas is that they both have “fairly full” and “round faces.” Id. at 132. Furthermore, the officers encountered Spivey in an area where Thomas was known to frequent, according to the flyer. The District Court also credited the testimony of the two officers and accepted the government’s reasons for discounting the differences between Spivey’s appearance and the photograph of Thomas. For example, the police testified that they did not find the fact 4 that Spivey’s head was shaved to be a significant factor in determining whether he matched the description of the robbery suspect because Thomas could have shaved his head after robbing the bank. In addition, although Spivey’s scar was visible from seven feet away in a courtroom, the police explained that they initially observed him from at least 15 feet away and did not see a scar. With respect to the difference in weight, the police testified that, although Spivey described his own weight as 230 pounds, he did not look that heavy when they observed him on the street wearing “baggy” clothing, which covered some of his bulk. Moreover, wanted flyers often do not accurately describe a suspect’s weight. One officer stated that, because some of the height and weight information on flyers can be old or inaccurate, they “go by, more the picture, his face compared to the picture.” Id. at 49. Finally, the District Court found that, even though the weight is “a little different,” their frames are the same. Id. at 132, 170.1 In the end, the District Court concluded, “I don’t think they’re that different,” and that “the similarities are much more than the differences.” Id. at 132. The court therefore found that the police reasonably believed that Spivey was the man wanted for bank robbery and acted reasonably in stopping him. The District Court also noted that the frisk was reasonable in light of the statement on the wanted flyer that Thomas may be armed and dangerous. Finally, the District Court found that it was reasonable for the officers to 1