Court Opinion

ID: 9909931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 17:00:45.091183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:17.503150
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 22-3221
                          ___________________________

                              United States of America

                                        Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                            Sir-Frank William Nelson, III

                                      Defendant - Appellant
                                    ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
                                   ____________

                            Submitted: October 19, 2023
                             Filed: December 14, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Late one night, police officers arrived at the scene of a suspected car crash
between a black car and a white car. The black car drove off quickly, and the white
car’s driver told the officers that there had been no collision, despite visible damage.
The officers noticed several violations of state law and radioed for a warrant check
on the people in the car, including Rodonus Echols and Sir-Frank Nelson.
       More officers then arrived on scene. They had been responding to a call at a
nearby club about a black man in a black SUV waving around an AR-15 when they
overheard the radio request about Echols and Nelson. They thought that Echols and
Nelson may have been involved in the AR-15 incident. After all, the suspected car
crash was about two blocks from the club in an area known for gun violence, Echols
and Nelson partially matched the limited description of the man with the AR-15, and
the officers knew that they both were associated with a gang and had been convicted
of a federal gun offense. At the scene, Detective Northup asked Nelson to step out
of the car. He had decided to pat Nelson down for officer safety but did not tell him
that. When Nelson stepped out of the car, he turned around and raised his arms.
Detective Northup patted him down and found a gun.

       The Government charged Nelson with being a felon in possession of a firearm,
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and Nelson moved to suppress the gun. The
district court 1 denied his motion after concluding that Detective Northup had
reasonable suspicion that Nelson was armed and dangerous. 2 Nelson then pleaded
guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.

       We review de novo whether Detective Northup had reasonable suspicion that
Nelson was armed and dangerous. United States v. Roelandt, 827 F.3d 746, 748 (8th
Cir. 2016). After lawfully stopping someone, “an officer may conduct a pat-down
search for weapons” if he has a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the person is
“armed and dangerous.” United States v. Houston, 920 F.3d 1168, 1172 (8th Cir.
2019). In determining whether an officer had reasonable suspicion, we use an
objective test that considers the totality of the circumstances. United States v.
Preston, 685 F.3d 685, 689 (8th Cir. 2012). An officer may pat someone down when

      1
         The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mark A.
Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
       2
         The district court also denied his motion on the ground that he had consented
to the pat-down. We affirm on reasonable suspicion alone, so we pass no judgment
on the court’s finding of consent.
                                            -2-
a “reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief
that his safety or that of others was in danger.” United States v. Horton, 611 F.3d
936, 941 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968)).

        Detective Northup had reasonable suspicion that Nelson was armed and
dangerous. Nelson had gotten in what appeared to be a car crash about two blocks
from the club where a black man had waved around an AR-15. Detective Northup
knew that Nelson partially matched the limited description of that man, had been
suspected of several shootings, was associated with a gang responsible for gun
violence, and was known to carry weapons and resist arrest. What is more, the
officers were dealing with three men late at night in an area known for gun violence,
and all three men were acting suspiciously. In these circumstances, Detective
Northup had reasonable suspicion that Nelson was armed and dangerous and so was
justified to pat him down for officer safety. See Roelandt, 827 F.3d at 748–49 (gang
affiliation and high-crime area contribute to reasonable suspicion); United States v.
Quinn, 812 F.3d 694, 698 (8th Cir. 2016) (reacting “suspiciously,” partially
matching description of suspect, and being close in time and place to crime support
reasonable suspicion); United States v. Roggeman, 279 F.3d 573, 578 (8th Cir. 2002)
(facts that go to officer safety, such as when the stop took place, are part of the
totality of the circumstances). The district court properly denied Nelson’s motion to
suppress the gun that Detective Northup found during the pat-down.

      We affirm the district court’s judgment.
                      ______________________________

                                         -3-