Towles v. United States

Decision Date04 June 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–CF–509.,14–CF–509.
Citation115 A.3d 1222
PartiesEdward TOWLES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Barbara E. Kittay was on the brief for appellant.

Ronald C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman, John P. Mannarino, Kamliah House, Elana Suttenberg, and L. Jackson Thomas II, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.

Before GLICKMAN and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and KING, Senior Judge.

Opinion

THOMPSON, Associate Judge:

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress and after a stipulated trial, appellant Edward Towles was convicted of unlawful possession of liquid phencyclidine (“PCP”), carrying a pistol without a license, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. He argues on appeal that the trial court (1) erred in denying his motion to suppress and (2) unlawfully imposed a three-year minimum sentence after ruling that his prior involuntary manslaughter conviction was a “crime of violence” for purposes of D.C.Code § 22–4503(b)(1) (2012 Repl. & 2013 Supp.). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Jordan Katz, six-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) gun recovery unit, testified that he, two other MPD officers, and an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) agent, all armed, were driving in an unmarked car with its windows down on the evening of November 6, 2013, near the intersection of Howard Road and Bryan Place, S.E. All the officers were wearing vests with the word “Police” across the front and back, in letters that could be read by someone standing outside the car. The officers and ATF agent were looking for guns but were not acting on any citizen call or informant tip at that time. Officer Katz testified that the gun recovery unit had “recovered a lot of guns over the years” in the area and that he personally had arrested “probably over ten” people with guns in the three or four blocks near Bryan Place, including a “handful” of people “in the last few months.”

Officer Katz, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, saw appellant walking with another man. Appellant was wearing a “bulky” green coat or jacket, and his hand was in his right pocket. As the officers' vehicle got closer to the two men, Officer Katz saw appellant look over his right shoulder at the officers' vehicle. Appellant then turned his head away, took his right hand out of the coat pocket, and put his hand “under his coat toward his right waistband” and “just moved it around.” Appellant then “cut[ ] behind” his companion and moved away from him, turning onto Bryan Place (which runs for only one block) and walking “much quicker” than he had been when Officer Katz first saw him. Officer Leo, who was driving, turned the police vehicle onto Bryan Place in order to follow appellant, and appellant “kept looking back at” the police vehicle as he walked toward a fence. Officer Katz asked Officer Leo to stop the car, and Officer Katz and ATF Agent Srivastava both got out of the vehicle.1

Officer Katz began “side stepping” toward appellant and asked him, in a “normal” tone of voice, whether he had a gun on his right side. Officer Katz testified that he asked this question because of appellant's gestures: taking his hand out of the pocket, making a movement at his right waistband (movement that Officer Katz testified caused him to be concerned that appellant had a gun in his waistband), breaking away from his friend, and [e]specially when he went towards that fence[,] a movement that caused Officer Katz to think, he's going to take [a gun] out and put it on the fence.”2 In response to Officer Katz's question, appellant “took his hand [and] kind of reached it under his coat[,] and Officer Katz saw a cell phone clipped to appellant's belt. Appellant unclipped the cell phone, held it so that Officer Katz could see it, and said, [I]t's just a cell phone.” As appellant did so, “the right coat pocket of [appellant's] coat hung over his right hand” such that Officer Katz “could see that there was something heavy” in the pocket. Officer Katz thought this heavy object was a gun.3

At that point, Officer Katz started to walk slowly toward appellant. Appellant “took his right side and turned it away” as if to keep the officer from seeing it as the officer walked toward him. Appellant also “started to look side to side[,] as if “looking for a way out of here.” Officer Katz, who was standing about 18 to 20 feet from appellant, said to appellant in a “raised” voice, [H]ey, keep looking at me. Keep looking at me.” Officer Katz explained that he said this because “at this point[,] with everything I'd seen, I figured he probably had a gun” and [w]hen he started to look side to side, I'm also thinking he's about to run [and] I would like him not to run” or to “try to take the gun and just throw it or take it out [or] do something else.”4 Officer Katz testified that he next said to appellant, in a conversational tone, [C]an I pat you down, make sure you don't have a gun [?] Appellant responded, [Y]eah, okay[,] and then “just put his head down.” Officer Katz walked toward appellant and put his hands out toward appellant's waistband, but, before he could touch appellant, appellant said, “I got a gun.” At this point, Officer Katz pushed appellant's arms up, and Officer Olszack, who had just gotten out of the police vehicle, grabbed appellant's left arm while Officer Katz held onto appellant's right arm. At that point, Officer Leo got out of the police vehicle (Officer Katz having given the “code word for a gun”), came over, and, as appellant was starting to say, “it's in my pocket,” touched appellant's right coat pocket, where he felt a handgun (later determined to be a small, .32 caliber semiautomatic weapon).5 The officers then handcuffed appellant. Shortly afterwards, appellant said, “I got some water[,] (i.e., PCP) and motioned his head down toward a breast pocket of his coat. Officer Katz touched the pocket and felt a vial. The crime scene officers later recovered a vial of PCP and a gun from appellant's pockets. Officer Katz testified that at no point during this encounter did he draw his weapon.

The defense witnesses at the suppression hearing were Richard Carter (appellant's cousin and the man who had been walking with appellant that evening) and appellant himself. Carter testified that he and appellant were walking in the street down Bryan Place, headed toward the Metro station, when they looked back, saw a car with police in it, and moved out of the way of the car. As he and appellant kept walking, someone in the car yelled, [L]ift your shirts up[,] and “Do you all have a gun?” Carter and appellant lifted their shirts. Appellant pulled his cell phone from his side, showed it to the officers, and said he did not have a gun. Carter and appellant continued walking together, but an officer got out of the car and kept asking whether the two men had guns, and the two repeatedly answered that they did not. The officer asked whether he could search the men, and both said again that they did not have guns. That officer and one other walked over to appellant, put his hands up, started searching him, and found a gun on him. Another officer told Carter to put his hands up and empty his pockets, both without his consent. Carter, who said that he was “apart from [appellant] when he was talking to the other officers” but could hear everything the officers were saying, testified that he never heard appellant give consent to a search or a pat down. Carter also acknowledged that only one officer, whose gun was not drawn, was talking to appellant during the beginning of the encounter, before Carter was asked to empty his pockets.

Appellant testified that he and Carter were walking toward the Metro station (on a planned route of going past Howard Road to Bryan Place, to Stanton Road and then Sheridan Road and finally back to Howard Road where the Anacostia station is located) when they were stopped by the police. According to appellant, he looked back and observed a “truck with police officers in it” slow down behind him. He “just kept walking,” with his cell phone in his right hand. After appellant and Carter turned onto Bryan Place, appellant clipped his phone to his waistband. He turned around when the police vehicle's “lights shined.” Someone yelled, [D]o you have a gun on your right side[?] and “Can you lift up your jacket[?] At the time, appellant testified, Carter was “beside [appellant] but a little bit [not even a foot] behind.” Appellant testified that he turned, lifted his jacket on the side, grabbed his phone, showed it to the officers, and told them it was only a phone. He then continued walking.

At that point, appellant testified, one of the officers got out of the vehicle and said, [S]top,” to appellant. After appellant stopped, the officer repeatedly asked him whether he had a gun on him or whether he had “anything on [him].” The officer then said, twice, [C]an I search you[?] Appellant both times shook his head, replied, [N]o,” and said, “I don't have nothing.” As the officer then walked up to appellant, appellant “turned [his right side] to the side a little bit” because he wanted the officer to leave him alone. The officer grabbed him, pushed his arms up, put his hands under appellant's armpits, and said, “I'm going to ask you again, do you have anything on you [?] Appellant testified that, at this point, he admitted to having a gun in his right pocket. The officer “called the code” and other officers “just bum rushed” appellant. Appellant testified that before the officer put his hands on him, he never gave the officer permission to touch him, search him, or pat him down. He would not have done so, he testified, because he knew he was “dirty” and because ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • In re S.W., 12–FS–434.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • September 17, 2015
    ...dissenting opinion asserts that S.W.'s “exhaustion is evident in the video,” exhaustion is not evident to me.6 Cf. Towles v. United States,115 A.3d 1222, 1229 (D.C.2015)(many people voluntarily consent to searches by the police even though they know that the searches will reveal contraband)......
  • Golden v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 2021
    ...not seized where officers "courteously" asked a few questions about his travel and whether he was carrying drugs); Towles v. United States , 115 A.3d 1222, 1231 (D.C. 2015) (one question in a "normal" tone posed to appellant whether he had a gun without other coercive conduct was not a seiz......
  • Dozier v. United States, 15-CF-1098
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 2019
    ...individual is not free to leave, become a nonconsensual seizure" that requires reasonable, articulable suspicion. Towles v. United States , 115 A.3d 1222, 1228 (D.C. 2015). In determining whether a seizure occurred, this court analyzes the totality of the circumstances to determine whether ......
  • Ellison v. United States, No. 19-CF-462
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 1, 2020
    ...judge's findings of fact only for clear error." Logan v. United States , 147 A.3d 292, 297 (D.C. 2016) (quoting Towles v. United States , 115 A.3d 1222, 1228 (D.C. 2015) ). We assess the trial court's legal conclusions under the Fourth Amendment de novo. Jackson v. United States , 157 A.3d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT