Opinion ID: 769380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Second Suppression Hearing.

Text: 23 After remand, Kithcart filed a motion in limine by which he sought to preclude the government from presenting any additional testimony. App. at 232a-236a. The government responded by arguing that nothing in Kithcart I precluded additional testimony on remand. Id. at 251a. The government insisted that our remand for consideration of reasonable suspicion for the stop permitted it to open the record to additional evidence relevant to Kithcart's motion to suppress. However, the government offered absolutely no explanation for its initial failure to present the additional witnesses at the original suppression hearing, nor did the district court demand an explanation. 24 The district court denied Kithcart's motion in limine and allowed the government to reopen its case and put on additional testimony. Although the court did not articulate its reasoning for doing so, it apparently concluded that our direction to consider whether the events leading to the discovery of the weapon in Kithcart's pouch can be justified as a Terry `pat-down'  permitted the government to re-litigate the motion to suppress. See App. at 93a ([O]n the basis of this paragraph and after studying the briefs for both sides, I am going to deny... the motion in limine.). 25 At the hearing that followed, the defense called Carl Green who testified that he did not run the traffic light. The government called additional police officers (including the officer who had actually seized the gun from Kithcart), introduced photographs to show the similarity between the car Kithcart was riding in, and the Z-28/Camaro mentioned in the radio transmissions, and recalled Officer Nelson for additional testimony that had not been elicited during the first suppression hearing. 26 Not surprisingly, the government's new testimony nicely filled the lacunae of the first hearing. The testimony that was offered neatly spackled over each of the cracks in the foundation of proof that we pointed out in Kithcart I. See 134 F.3d at 531-532; and 532-536 (McKee, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 27 The district court summarized the testimony at the second hearing, and stated its findings of fact as follows: 28 Officer Nelson testified that the intersection where she pulled up behind the black Nissan sports car was between Route 13 and Bensalem Boulevard. 4 As the two cars were waiting at the traffic signal, Officer Nelson observed that the driver of the Nissan was looking repeatedly at his side-view and rear-view mirrors. The Nissan then proceeded through the red light. 29 Officer Nelson and Thomas Taylor, a Bensalem Police Sergeant, described the intersection of Route 13 and Bensalem Boulevard. Route 13 runs north and south, and Bensalem Boulevard, which also runs north and south, dead ends from an angle on the west side of Route 13. When the light governing Bensalem Boulevard traffic turns red, northbound traffic on Route 13 is presented with a green signal and a green arrow allowing a left turn onto Bensalem Boulevard. This leaves the southbound Route 13 traffic with a delayed green signal. The southbound Route 13 traffic can see the Bensalem Boulevard signal, but an approximate 15 second delay exists between the time when that signal turns red and the time when the Route 13 South signal turns green. 30 Carl Green, the driver of the Nissan, also testified at the hearing. Green had pled guilty to a firearms offense and cooperated in the government's prosecution of [Kithcart]. Throughout his cooperation, Green consistently contended that he did not run a red light during the incident in question. He reiterated this contention at the hearing. Green also admitted, however, that when he was stopped at the red light, he consistently looked in his mirrors to keep track of Officer Nelson's actions. Green was very nervous, and his attention was focused on `both' the traffic signal and Officer Nelson. Green testified that because he knew a police officer was directly behind him, he exercised special caution against committing a traffic violation. 31 Officer Nelson testified that the third radio transmission, which she received approximately ten minutes before she spotted the Nissan, indicated that the third robbery took place approximately ten minutes before the transmission. She also testified that immediately after she pulled the Nissan over, she radioed in her location. It was at this point that she saw not only the driver put his hands over his head, but also a second pair of arms extending over a passenger's head. Officer Nelson then realized that there were two black males in the Nissan. She immediately got back in her car, radioed and waited for backup. U.S. v. Kithcart 1998 WL 962095, -. 32 Based on these facts, the district court concluded that the search and the initial stop were justified and reasonable under the Terry exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at . 33 Accordingly, the district court again denied Kithcart's motion to suppress, and this appeal followed. 34