Lawrence v. United States, 84-596.
Decision Date | 20 May 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 84-596.,84-596. |
Parties | Herbert W. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
H. Heather Shaner, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
James F. Rutherford, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., and Michael W. Farrell and Judith Hetherton, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before NEWMAN and BELSON, Associate Judges, and PAIR, Senior Judge.
Appellant Herbert W. Lawrence was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, D.C. Code § 22-3204 (1981), possession of an unregistered firearm, id. § 6-2311(a), and unlawful possession of ammunition, id. § 6-2361(3). On appeal, he asserts that the weapon and ammunition were seized in the course of an illegal detention. Because we are satisfied that the officer who initiated the stop of appellant had the requisite articulable suspicion to do so, we affirm.
At approximately 7:40 p.m. on a Monday evening, Officer Thomas Senko of the U.S. Capital Police was patrolling in the area of Independence Avenue, S.E. in a patrol wagon. Senko first saw Lawrence as Lawrence was standing at the corner of 3rd Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. with Barron Jackson, Lawrence's companion that evening. A few minutes later, Senko saw Jackson enter a liquor store on Pennsylvania Avenue near 2nd Street, S.E., and Independence Avenue, and exit two minutes later without having made a purchase. He rejoined Lawrence, who had been standing at the corner of 2nd and Independence. The two men then walked past the store, turned around, and walked past the store again. His suspicions aroused, Senko called his dispatcher for a rebroadcast of the descriptions of two suspects wanted in a robbery earlier that evening. The rebroadcast indicated, inter alia, that the two suspects were wearing army fatigue pants;1 Senko saw that Jackson was wearing fatigue pants. The two men appeared to notice Senko, and began to walk faster. Officer Senko then turned on his emergency lights and sounded his horn. At that, Lawrence and Jackson split up. Lawrence ran up a small drive towards the Capitol Building and Jackson went across First Street. Senko, still in his patrol wagon, tried to follow Lawrence, but was unable to do so when Lawrence ran through a wooded area on the Capitol grounds. Senko then pursued Jackson, whom he apprehended at Independence and New Jersey Avenues.
Officer Andre Fontanilla, standing at the corner of First Street and Independence, saw Officer Senko turn on his emergency equipment and saw the suspects split up. Fontanilla chased Lawrence through the wooded area, and caught up with him on the north side of Independence Avenue. The two briefly scuffled before Fontanilla subdued Lawrence. When the police searched Lawrence, they found a loaded revolver in his jacket pocket.
On appeal, Lawrence asserts that Officer Senko did not have the requisite articulable suspicion to warrant stopping him under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). We disagree.
Terry established that to justify an investigative stop, the police officer "must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the intrusion. Id. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1879. We begin our analysis of this case by noting that while Lawrence and Jackson's initial activity in front of the liquor store was sufficient to arouse Senko's suspicion, by itself it did not justify stopping them. United States v. Barnes, 496 A.2d 1040, 1043 (D.C. 1985) ( ). This court, however, has recognized that a suspect's reaction upon seeing a police officer can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of the stop.
Especially pertinent is our frequent recognition that "flight from authority — implying consciousness of guilt — may be considered among other factors justifying a Terry seizure." Johnson v. United States, 496 A.2d 592, 597 (D.C. 1985), citing Stephenson v. United States, 296 A.2d 606, 609-10 (D.C. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 907, 93 S.Ct. 1535, 36 L.Ed.2d 197 (1973); see also United States v. McCarthy, 448 A.2d 267, 270 (D.C. 1982) ( ); Franklin v. United States, 382 A.2d 20, 22 (D.C. 1978) ( ); Tobias v. United States, 375 A.2d 491, 494 (D.C. 1977) ( ); Smith v. United States, 295 A.2d 64, 66 (D.C. 1972) (, )cert. denied, 411 U.S. 952, 93 S.Ct. 1929, 36 L.Ed.2d 415 (1973).
On November 28, 1983, at approximately 7:04 p.m., the following information was broadcast via police communications and monitored by U.S. Capitol Police Officer Thomas M. Senko:
Scout 119 119
We just had a robbery, hold-up, gun First and E Northwest
Look out two black males with army fatigue pants
No description of the weapon.
No direction of travel.
[Unintelligible] cruise
Attention all units for your information: Metropolitan responding to a robbery, armed robbery — First and E/Edward Northwest Lookout two Negro males. Both wearing army fatigue type uniforms.
No further descriptions at this time. Subjects are armed. 19:04. Transcript of broadcast, Record (R.) 30.
Senko testified that approximately forty minutes later, at 2nd Street and Independence Avenue Southeast, he observed Lawrence and Jackson in the vicinity of a liquor store. Jackson entered the liquor store and came out two minutes later, apparently without having made any purchase. Jackson rejoined Lawrence who had been standing at the corner of 2nd and Independence S.E. They walked past the store, turned around and walked past it again. His suspicions aroused, Senko asked police communications for a rebroadcast of the description of the robbery suspects. The following is a transcript of this communication:
123
123
Got two persons one hundred block Independence southeast.
unintelligible
One's wearing green fatigues.
One's wearing tennis shoes.
I'm gonna stop them. Need back-up. 123 — What's the one wearing green fatigues — the one wearing tennis shoes — what type of clothes, other clothes does he have on besides tennis shoes?
He's got on a brown jacket. The other one's got a brown jacket on, blue [unintelligible,] a red white and blue knit cap. I'm gonna check em out anyway.
He's got on tennis shoes with stars on them.
118 We'll back em up.
119 You're also available. 19:47. Id.
Senko testified that he turned on his emergency lights and sounded his horn. He said: "[a]t that point they the two subjects started to jog away from my location." Tr. 8.
The content of the police report of the armed robbery, as it pertained to the description of the perpetrators, was read into the record by counsel for Lawrence, without objection. This description was Tr. 25.
During the suppression hearing, Senko testified that the broadcast he monitored Tr. 6. He testified that the "defendant was wearing a brown jacket, looked like a military style jacket from when I observed it, and was also wearing tennis shoes with stars on them." Tr. 6. Senko's testimony, corroborated by U.S. Capitol Police Officer Fontenilla, that the "tennis shoes with stars on them" was part of the description as broadcast is belied by the transcript of both broadcast set out above. Further, the police report containing the description given to the police by the victim of the armed robbery contains nothing about footwear. Tr. 25. Jackson, when called as a witness by Lawrence, denied that Lawrence was wearing white sneakers or any footwear with stars on them. Tr. 28.
No party contended in the trial court or in this court, that the record before us contains less than the full descriptions broadcast or that the excerpt of the police report of the armed robbery concerning the description is incomplete in any manner.1 Thus, we are confronted with the following saga. A member of the U.S. Capitol Police heard a broadcast of a description of "two black males with . . . army fatigue type uniforms", R. 30, having committed an armed robbery at 1st and E Streets, N.W. at approximately 7:00 p.m. Approximately 40 minutes later, and at least ten blocks away, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. United States
...that flight indicated a consciousness of guilt.'" In re D.J., supra, 532 A.2d at 141 (quoting Lawrence v. United States, 509 A.2d 614, 618 (D.C.App.1986) (Newman, J., dissenting)); Johnson, supra, 496 A.2d at 597. Typically, in those cases in which we have found that flight indicated a cons......
-
State v. Gantt
...officer communicates in a more direct manner to the pedestrian the officer's intention to stop the pedestrian.” Lawrence v. United States, 509 A.2d 614, 616 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1986). The reasoning behind this distinction is clear. Emergency lights have many functions—they may serve to inform mot......
-
United States v. Bennett
...296 A.2d 606, 609-10 (D.C. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 907, 93 S.Ct. 1535, 36 L.Ed.2d 197 (1973). See also, Lawrence v. United States, 509 A.2d 614, 615-16 (D.C. 1986); United States v. McCarthy, 448 A.2d 267, 270 (D.C. 1982) (flight of defendant's companion was factor justifying investig......
-
In re TLL, 96-FS-470.
...say, it was not exonerating." We agree with the judge that T.L.L.'s actions at the scene were relevant, see, e.g., Lawrence v. United States, 509 A.2d 614, 616 (D.C.1986) (citations omitted), but we do not believe that this evidence added enough to the District's otherwise flimsy case to pu......