Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Tenth Circuit US v. Briggs 12-5140

Decision here.

   A couple of officers were patrolling a high crime area in an unmarked (but easily recognizable) police vehicle.  It's worth noting that they didn't just arbitrarily label it a high crime area, each of them was able to testify to the existence of several previous investigations of shootings and violent crimes.

   Anyway, Briggs and some other guy were walking around in this high crime area when the cops saw them.  Briggs and the other guy abruptly changed directions and tried to get away without actually running away, but they picked up the pace so much that they may as well have been.  Briggs kept glancing over his shoulder and grabbing at his waistband like he was checking a concealed gun.  They split up when they got to a house, and one of them started knocking on the front door while the other continued through the yard.

   The officers caught up to them at the house, got out of their car, and asked them to come talk to them.  Briggs turned to face the cops but kept backing away, and then Briggs' friend took off running.  One of the officers chased him while the other held Briggs at gunpoint and warned him not to run.

   Briggs told the officer he wasn't going to run, and that he had a gun on him.  He was handcuffed, and the gun was found right where he'd been grabbing while not-quite-running away.  Briggs' friend was never caught.  Briggs was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

   Briggs moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an illegal stop.  Calling this one a close issue, the district court ruled that the stop was reasonable.  Briggs pled guilty, but appealed his conviction (arguing that the court had erred in not suppressing the evidence).

   The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the lower court.  The court cited several factors that supported reasonable suspicion, including the high crime area, Briggs' evasive behavior, Briggs' actions which suggested that he was armed, and Briggs' companion's headlong flight.  Although none of these factors alone would have been enough for reasonable suspicion, taken as a whole they were.

   Regarding the evasive behavior in particular, Briggs argued that because he didn't "bolt" he wasn't making an obvious attempt to evade and therefore wasn't suspicious.  The court held that bolting isn't the only obvious form of evasion, and abruptly changing direction and then picking up the pace while nervously glancing behind you is pretty clearly evasive behavior.  Regarding reaching for his waistband, Briggs argued that this wasn't suspicious because people with CCW permits can legally carry weapons.  The district court had ruled that this wasn't suspicious because the officer didn't see the outline of a gun, and because he admitted on cross-examination that it was possible that Briggs had been pulling up his pants rather than checking a gun (although he had testified on direct that Briggs was grabbing his waistband like he was reaching for a gun).  The Tenth disagreed with both of them.  Even though some people may legally carry concealed weapons, reasonable suspicion doesn't require that all innocent explanations be ruled out before someone be detained.  It doesn't even require that someone be more likely guilty than not.  And even if simply concealing a weapon isn't suspicious, concealing one while attempting to evade the cops in a high crime area... you get the idea.  As far as not seeing the outline of a gun, the Tenth Circuit recognized that cops are better than judges at telling what a concealed weapon looks like.

   Briggs' argued that his partner's flight didn't do anything to create reasonable suspicion that he (Briggs) was involved in criminal activity.  He compared this case to De La Cruz, where the court held that a passenger running from a car didn't create reasonable suspicion that the driver was an illegal alien.

   The prosecution argued (and the court agreed) that this case is distinguishable from De La Cruz.  It isn't that a compatriot running never  creates reasonable suspicion for the one who stays behind.  It's that in De La Cruz, reasonable suspicion had already dissipated, and De La Cruz's friend running didn't bolster it as to De La Cruz.  There was nothing about De La Cruz's friend running that suggested that De La Cruz was an illegal alien.

   By contrast, Briggs and his friend appeared to be acting in concert and a reasonable officer would likely conclude that whatever they were up to, they were both involved in it.  So when one of them started acting even more suspicious (by running away), that suspicion could attach to both of them.  Also, reasonable suspicion as to Briggs had not dissipated at the time that he was detained, his stop was only just beginning.

   So although none of the factors the police relied on would be likely to support reasonable suspicion on its own, they did support reasonable suspicion when viewed as a whole.  The stop was upheld, and Briggs' conviction affirmed.


No comments:

Post a Comment