Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Dickerson
Citation: 314 F. App'x 870Docket: No. 08-1662
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; February 11, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Willis Dickerson was stopped by police shortly after midnight on suspicion of involvement in a drug deal. Upon exiting his van, he dropped a bag of crack cocaine before the officer could conduct a frisk. Subsequent searches revealed more crack in his shoe and drug paraphernalia in the van. Dickerson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the frisk lacked reasonable suspicion. At the suppression hearing, Officer Shane Sharp testified about conducting surveillance due to drug complaints and observing what he believed was a drug deal involving Dickerson's van. Officer Norman Jacks, who stopped the van for a traffic violation, noted suspicious behavior from Dickerson and identified him as someone with a prior police alert for weapons and violence. After Jacks ordered Dickerson to place his hands on a squad car for a pat-down, Dickerson repeatedly ignored the command and put his hands in his pockets. When he removed his hands, he dropped what appeared to be crack cocaine. The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding reasonable suspicion for the stop based on the traffic violation and suspected drug transaction. It ruled that no frisk occurred before Dickerson dropped the drugs due to his resistance but stated that a frisk would have been justified under the circumstances. Dickerson concedes the legality of the stop of his van but argues that the subsequent frisk lacked reasonable suspicion, warranting suppression of the evidence obtained thereafter. The court reviews reasonable suspicion determinations de novo, requiring specific, articulable facts indicating a potential weapon threat, as established in Terry v. Ohio. The analysis involves the totality of circumstances rather than isolated officer reasons, emphasizing an objective standard based on the officer's knowledge and the broader context of the encounter. Key factors influencing reasonable suspicion include the location of the stop, the suspect's behavior, and the officer’s familiarity with the suspect. In this case, Officer Jacks recognized Dickerson from previous interactions linked to violence and weapons, noted Dickerson's recent departure from a suspected drug deal, and considered the late hour and Dickerson's movements in the van suggestive of retrieving or discarding an item. These circumstances led to a justified belief in a potential threat, allowing Jacks to conduct the frisk. The government also suggested that a Terry frisk was unnecessary because Dickerson had discarded crack cocaine prior to the pat-down, which would provide probable cause for arrest. However, since the court found reasonable suspicion for the frisk, it did not address this alternative argument. The ruling is affirmed.