Opinion ID: 2982385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Terry Stop Issue

Text: On this Fourth Amendment claim, the district court accepted the prosecution’s rendition of the facts as follows: According to the government, Defendant was arrested while walking south-bound on Greenfield Road approaching Capitol Street at 2:30 a.m. on November 4, 2011, by two Detroit Police officers on patrol. The officers were on patrol in the area due to recent armed robberies and shootings, and they did not have a warrant for Defendant’s arrest. Upon seeing Defendant, the officers illuminated him with a flashlight. The officers testified they saw a bulge in defendant’s front jacket in the shape of a gun, at which point they exited their vehicle. After Defendant grabbed his pocket, the officer asked Defendant to show his hands, and Defendant ultimately complied. Upon finding a gun in Defendant’s possession, the officers arrested him. At oral argument and in his letter to the court of May 9, after oral argument on May 1, 2014, defense counsel took issue with the district court’s factual statement as follows: At the very least it must be acknowledged that the District Court clearly erred when it found that the officers “testified” that the bulge in Mr. Bell’s jacket was “in the shape of a gun.” Op. & O (doc. #30) 161 (emphasis added). There is no such testimony in the record. As we read the record, this defense claim understates the strength of the arresting officer’s testimony. Beginning on page 23 of the Record (doc. #33), an arresting officer testified as follows: -2- Case No. 13-1250 United States v. Bell Q. On the activity log it indicates that there was a bulge in Mr. Bell’s pocket which appeared to be a gun, correct?
Q. Could you see by the bulge that it was a gun or were you just assuming that the bulge was a gun? A. Well, the bulge appeared to be a gun to me. The officer’s belief, based on his eyewitness observations, that the defendant had a bulge in his pocket that was in the shape of a gun provides “reasonable suspicion” under the Terry doctrine that the defendant was carrying a concealed pistol. Defense counsel does not argue that carrying such a concealed weapon in Michigan is legal, but rather that simply having his hand on a “bulge” in his pocket is not sufficient to trigger a valid Terry stop. Here, however, the testimony was that the “bulge” was in the shape of a gun. The officer was “experienced,” a factor that Terry recites as a consideration to be taken into account. 392 U.S. at 23, 30. The other facts stated by the district court—that the events happened at 2:30 a.m. in the morning in a Detroit area where recent “robberies and shootings” had occurred—make a persuasive case for the stop in the first instance. The suspicion that the defendant had a pistol in his pocket completes the basis for the frisk and makes it reasonable. The arresting officers did not ask the defendant to hold up his hands and submit to a seizure until after this combination of factors was present. The request to raise his hands in such circumstances was approved in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). The district court did not err in accepting this reasoning. -3- Case No. 13-1250 United States v. Bell