Opinion ID: 6500908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Suppress the Gun

Text: The government charged Olson with one count of possession of a gun as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Olson moved to suppress the gun as fruit of an illegal search shortly thereafter. Olson argued his encounter with the officers was either an arrest from its inception unsupported by probable cause or an unconstitutional Terry stop unsupported by reasonable suspicion. The magistrate judge held a suppression hearing where, in addition to reviewing the officers’ incident reports and the radio transmissions from the night in question, he took live testimony from Marzullo, Hamilton, and Gatdula. Although their testimony largely aligned with their reports, the officers’ accounts at the suppression hearing expanded upon or diverged in a few key respects. All three officers testified they decided to confront Olson after seeing him place a gun in the waistband at the small of his back to confirm he was lawfully carrying. While holders of concealed carry weapon (“CCW”) permits are permitted to concealed carry in Wisconsin, those without such permits are not. Gatdula testified that, in his 6 No. 21-2128 professional experience, CCW holders do not place guns in the waistband at the small of their backs. Given the proximate, ongoing civil unrest, the officers viewed their interaction with Olson as a high-risk encounter. The officers testified they feared Olson, who they suspected was armed with a gun, presented a danger both to officers and the public. The officers cited assaults on MPD officers and destruction of MPD property, threats of further violence, the recent theft of a rifle from a marked squad car, and large groups of protestors nearby. Marzullo in particular was concerned Olson might follow the group of MPD officers who recently left the chapel to assist an officer in distress. All three officers emphasized the rapid succession of events and lack of time to make decisions. Consequently, the officers testified it was necessary to approach Olson with their guns drawn and place him in handcuffs prior to his arrest. Where the officers’ testimony departs from their written reports is in their account of when, and how many times, Olson admitted to being a felon. Marzullo and Hamilton testified Olson said he was a felon shortly after Gatdula retrieved the gun from his waistband but before they placed Olson under arrest. Marzullo stated his written report was incorrect and should have indicated Olson admitted to being a felon before his arrest. Hamilton testified it was Olson’s identification of himself as a felon that triggered the arrest. Gatdula testified Marzullo came up to him while he was inspecting the gun and told him Olson said he was a felon. Hamilton testified Olson made a second spontaneous admission as to his status as a felon after he was arrested while awaiting the arrest team on the nearby porch. When pressed why their written reports did not reflect this sequence of events, all three No. 21-2128 7 officers pointed to the unusual degree of stress and sleep deprivation they experienced that weekend. All three officers testified they did not review their reports until shortly before the suppression hearing. The magistrate judge recommended denying Olson’s sup- pression motion. First, the officers’ use of force did not ripen the initial stop to an arrest. The magistrate judge determined Olson and his gun presented an “immediate, palpable danger” to officers and civilians. Second, the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop. The magistrate judge credited Hamilton and Gatdula’s description of Olson’s extensive visual survey of his surroundings as “countersurveillance” suggesting he wished to evade notice. The magistrate judge also cited the officers’ professional experience that CCW holders do not typically carry their guns in the waistband at the small of their back. Combined with the “maelstrom of violence and danger” of the night in question, the officers reasonably suspected from the totality of the circumstances Olson was engaged in criminal activity. Third, the magistrate judge found Olson admitted to being a felon twice: once before his arrest and once after. The magistrate judge acknowledged Olson identified a legitimate question regarding the discrepancy between Marzullo’s written report and his testimony, a difference which flipped a material fact in favor of the government. Nevertheless, based on the written reports, the radio transmissions, and the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, the magistrate judge credited the se- quence of events described during the suppression hearing. Fourth and finally, the magistrate judge noted the good faith doctrine applied even if the officers constitutionally erred. 8 No. 21-2128 Olson objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recom- mendation. Two of his objections are relevant on appeal. Olson challenged the magistrate judge’s factual determination as to the timing and number of his admissions regarding being a felon. Olson also revived his claim that the officers’ use of force immediately ripened the stop to an arrest. The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, accepting the factual findings and incorporating them as its own. Citing the unusual circumstances and safety concerns on the night in question, the district court agreed the encounter between officers and Olson did not amount to an immediate arrest. The district court also determined the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Olson was carrying a gun unlawfully, justifying an investigatory stop. Finally, giving deference to the magistrate judge’s credibility determinations based on taking live testimony at the hearing, the district court declined to disturb the factual finding Olson told officers he was a felon before his arrest. The district court agreed other evidence (specifically the radio transmissions and Gatdula and Hamilton’s testimony) corroborated Marzullo’s testimony as to the sequence of events. Olson now appeals the district court’s denial of his suppression motion.