Opinion ID: 800561
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of high-violent-crime area

Text: Whitehead sought to bar reference to the 800 block of South Lavergne as a high-crime area, arguing that the evidence had no foundation, had limited relevance, and was highly prejudicial. Initially, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that a proper foundation was laid for Officer Bond, Lt. Stevens, and Sgt. Stack to testify, based on their experience patrolling the area for several years, that it was a high-violent-crime area. See United States v. Baskin, 401 F.3d 788, 793 (7th Cir.2005) (stating that specific data establishing that a location is a high-crime area is not required). We also find that the evidence had some relevance. Contrary to Whitehead's assertions, an officer's supported opinion that an area is a high-violent-crime area can be considered in a probable cause analysis. See Carmichael v. Vill. of Palatine, Ill. 605 F.3d 451, 457 (7th Cir.2010) ([P]robable cause depends not on the facts as an omniscient observer would perceive them but on the facts as they would have appeared to a reasonable person in the position of the arresting officer seeing what he saw, hearing what he heard.) (emphasis in original) (quotations omitted). When conduct is taking place in a high-crime area, the characteristics of the location may be one factor officers consider under the totality of circumstances when detaining someone. [1] See United States v. Jackson, 300 F.3d 740, 746 (7th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Oglesby, 597 F.3d 891, 894 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir. 2004). For this factor to carry weight, there should be a reasonable connection between the neighborhood's higher crime rate and the facts relied upon to support probable cause. See, e.g., United States v. Tinnie, 629 F.3d 749, 758 (7th Cir.2011) (Hamilton, J., dissenting). Here, there was a connection. Lt. Stevens was concerned not just with Whitehead's behavior, but also with that of the other people in the crowd (who he testified Whitehead was instigating). In part, because it was a high-violent-crime area, the seemingly agitated crowd posed a greater threat to the officers safety, who feared that violence was more likely to ensue if prompt action wasn't taken to disperse the crowd. The officers could reasonably consider the characteristics of the area in assessing the situation and deciding what action to take to maintain control. The evidence was relevant, but it was also prejudicial. As we have said though, most relevant evidence is prejudicial, so the issue is whether it was unfairly prejudicial. We cannot find that the district court abused its wide discretion in admitting the evidence. Neither party suggests that the probable cause instruction to the jury was an inaccurate statement of the law and thus the jury was properly guided. Further, Whitehead and Donald testified that the neighborhood is mostly compromised of good hardworking homeowners and retired citizens. Donald described the block as [m]ostly bungalows, retired people, elderly people, ... working class people... It's a middle class neighborhood. Defense counsel didn't refute this more specific description of the block. We do not find that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the jury to hear the parties' differing perceptions of the area.