Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; July 11, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
On October 19, 1999, Lorenzo L. Mitchell was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Following the filing of a motion to suppress the firearm, which Mitchell claimed was discovered illegally, the district court denied the motion on January 25, 2000, ruling that the officers acted legally under the totality of the circumstances. After waiving his right to a jury and counsel, Mitchell was found guilty after a bench trial on March 27, 2000, resulting in a sentence of 46 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
The appeal focuses on the denial of the motion to suppress. On October 5, 1999, Peoria Police Officers responded to a "shots fired" call in a gang area, where they encountered Mitchell and Jason Bennett, both known to have violent backgrounds. When approached by the officers, both men denied hearing gunfire. Officer Moore ordered them to comply with a weapons pat-down. Bennett complied, but Mitchell resisted and placed his hands in his pockets, raising suspicion. After a tense interaction, during which Officer Moore drew his weapon, Mitchell eventually began to walk towards the police car but then ran away, prompting further legal scrutiny regarding the officers' actions. The court ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision.
Officer Moore attempted to apprehend Mitchell, who escaped but was observed running with his hand on his waist, suggesting he might be armed. Officer Wilson, drawing from his experience, inferred that Mitchell likely had a gun. After a brief chase, Wilson tackled Mitchell, witnessing a pistol in his hand as he fell. During the struggle, Mitchell punched Wilson, but both officers managed to restrain him. A loaded Colt .22 caliber pistol was recovered from the scene.
Mitchell, charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, sought to suppress the weapon, arguing the officers lacked authority for a pat-down. The trial judge denied the motion, concluding the officers had sufficient grounds for the search based on the totality of circumstances. Mitchell waived his right to a jury trial and an attorney, resulting in a guilty verdict on March 27, 2000. He appealed the suppression denial.
The court reviews the denial of the motion to suppress de novo for legal questions and with deference for factual findings. The case hinges on whether the officers had enough information to require Mitchell to submit to a pat-down. The officers were responding to a report of shots fired, had arrived shortly after the report, and encountered two known gang members, including Mitchell, who had a history of violence and gun possession. Officer Moore was particularly aware of Mitchell's dangerous background from a prior investigation. The officers' experiences and the context of their arrival contributed to the justification for their actions.
Officers, upon receiving a report of shots fired in a high-crime area, approached two known gang members, Jason Bennett and another individual, both of whom denied hearing any shots. Officer Moore ordered pat-down searches based on the context and their known criminal affiliations. The affidavit cited the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, emphasizing the necessity for police to ensure their safety in potentially dangerous encounters, justifying stops even without probable cause for arrest. The combination of the shots fired report, the officers' rapid response, the suspects' profiles as gang members with a history of violence, and their presence as the only adult black males in the vicinity created a reasonable apprehension of danger. Therefore, the officers had sufficient legal grounds to conduct an investigative stop (Terry stop) under the totality of the circumstances, aligning with previous case law.
Brown's nervous demeanor during a traffic stop, including his failure to maintain eye contact and excessive glancing back at the car with tinted windows, contributed to the totality of the circumstances justifying a Terry stop and pat-down. While nervousness alone does not warrant such actions, it is a relevant factor. The stop occurred in a high-crime area with known drug activity, which, although not a sole basis for suspicion, can be considered alongside other behaviors. Brown was stopped for speeding while driving a vehicle suspected of drug trafficking and smelling of marijuana. These factors led Officer Wildauer to reasonably suspect that Brown might be armed and dangerous, thus validating the pat-down search.
Mitchell's conviction and sentence were affirmed. Notably, both officers involved had extensive experience, and the area was controlled by a gang linked to numerous police calls. Concerns were raised about Officer Moore's statement regarding stopping black males, highlighting potential Fourth Amendment violations, though it was determined that race was not a controlling factor in the stop. Additionally, the withdrawal of Officer Moore's firearm during the stop did not automatically escalate the situation to an arrest.
