U.S. v. Baldwin
Decision Date | 23 July 2007 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 06-4265-cr. |
Citation | 496 F.3d 215 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerome K. BALDWIN, also known as Jerome Baldwin, also known as Brucey B, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Deirdre A. Murray, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Paul F. Thomas, on the brief), for Thomas G. Dennis, Federal Public Defender, New Haven, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.*
Eric J. Glover, Assistant United States Attorney (William J. Nardini, on the brief), for Kevin J. O'Connor, United States Attorney, District of Connecticut, for Appellee.
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, WESLEY and GIBSON,** Circuit Judges.
When a driver heeds a police order to stop only to drive away as the police approach, has the driver been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? We hold that a seizure requires submission to police authority, and conclude that the driver's initial fleeting stop does not amount to such submission. We therefore affirm the denial of the driver's motion to suppress evidence found on his person and in his car, and affirm the conviction entered in the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, J.).
On the afternoon of September 4, 2005, an anonymous caller told the New Haven police that two black men, one wearing a white t-shirt, were carrying firearms. The caller reported that they were standing next to a grey or silver Chevrolet Impala with Virginia license plates, parked on Downing Street, near an intersection with Bailey Street. The location is adjacent to the Quinnipiac Terrace housing complex, which has been plagued by the sale of guns and illicit drugs. According to the tipster, the men had "big guns, real real big guns, serious."
Police officers Plowman and Donnelly found no one at the reported location; but as they drove along Downing Street, they saw a grey car oncoming which had no front license plate. As it approached, the officers observed that the driver was a black man (later identified as Jerome Baldwin) wearing a black t-shirt, but could not see any passengers. As the car passed, the officers identified it as a silver 2001 Chevrolet Impala bearing a Virginia license plate on the rear; they turned on their overhead lights and siren and pursued.
The Impala stopped after turning left onto Bailey Street and the marked patrol car pulled up behind it. As Plowman and Donnelly approached the Impala on foot, the driver (Baldwin) leaned out the window and peered back at them. Plowman instructed Baldwin to show his hands, but he simply stared back and refused to comply. The officers twice repeated the order and, with Baldwin still non-compliant, drew their weapons. As Donnelly approached the Impala's passenger side to determine whether any one else was inside, the car sped off.
In the chase that ensued, Baldwin broke an untold number of traffic laws and narrowly averted multiple serious accidents. As Baldwin attempted to negotiate a right turn at the bottom of an exit ramp, his car jumped the curb and slammed into an embankment. At that point, a black man wearing a white t-shirt opened the passenger door and fled on foot; he was never apprehended. Baldwin ran back onto the highway and jumped off an overpass, but was eventually stopped by other officers who had joined the pursuit. Baldwin was handcuffed and taken via patrol car to Plowman and Donnelly, who identified him as the driver of the Impala.
A search of Baldwin's person incident to his arrest yielded a black mask, a wallet containing a Virginia driver's license in his name, and a note which read, "Hi-Point Mansfield-Ohio, Model C, 9MM, 9MM Ammunition too." One of the arresting officers recognized Baldwin as a member of the Island Brothers gang, known to infest Quinnipiac Terrace.
A large machine pistol (later determined to have a round in the chamber) was lying on the front passenger floor of the Impala. A search of the car's interior yielded ammunition and a speed loader for the pistol; a Savage 20 gauge pump-action shotgun; and a Hi-point 9MM semiautomatic handgun matching the description in the note found in Baldwin's wallet. The search also yielded drug paraphernalia: small plastic bags of crack cocaine, a balance scale, a digital scale, and a cutting agent. The Impala was registered to Baldwin.
Baldwin was indicted on three counts: (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); (2) possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)); and (3) using and possessing a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)). Baldwin moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his person and his vehicle on the ground that officers Plowman and Donnelly lacked reasonable suspicion when they initially ordered him to stop. The government responded that, by speeding away, Baldwin had disobeyed that order and therefore had not been seized. Alternatively, the government argued that the order to stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.1
The district court denied Baldwin's motion on April 7, 2006, reasoning that
[r]egardless of what Baldwin's initial motivations were in pulling over his car, he never submitted to the officers' show of authority and therefore was never seized. . . .
. . . Baldwin's pre-seizure behavior — including fleeing from police, the operation of his vehicle, crashing his vehicle and running away on foot — generated reasonable suspicion for his ultimate apprehension.
United States v. Baldwin, No. 05 Cr. 291, 2006 WL 923721, *3-*4 (D.Conn. Apr.7, 2006). The district court thus had no occasion to decide whether the initial order to stop was lawful.
Baldwin entered a conditional plea of guilty to the second and third counts of the indictment, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. He was sentenced principally to 120 months' imprisonment on the second count and 60 months on the third, the sentences to run consecutively.
This appeal is taken only from the denial of the motion to suppress. Where, as here, the district court's ruling "turned on the legal question of when [the defendant] was seized, we review the decision de novo." United States v. Swindle, 407 F.3d 562, 566 (2d Cir.2005).
Baldwin argues that he was seized as soon as he pulled to a stop in response to the patrol car's overhead lights and siren, that this seizure was unlawful when made, and that his subsequent flight did not render the seizure lawful retroactively.
The government argues that Baldwin's position has already been rejected by the Supreme Court in California v. Hodari D., which held that a seizure requires "either physical force . . . or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority." 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). We have understood the import of Hodari D. to be that "an order to stop must be obeyed or enforced physically to constitute a seizure." Swindle, 407 F.3d at 572. Baldwin agrees that Hodari D. and Swindle control, but argues that he obeyed the order to stop when he stopped, albeit temporarily.
We hold that, to comply with an order to stop — and thus to become seized — a suspect must do more than halt temporarily; he must submit to police authority, for "there is no seizure without actual submission," Brendlin v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2405, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007). Several circuits have said as much. See United States v. Washington, 12 F.3d 1128, 1132 (D.C.Cir.1994) () ; see also United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 359 (3d Cir.2000) (); United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir.1994) () . Arguably to the contrary is United States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561, 1567 (10th Cir.1991) (), but for the reasons that follow, we decline to adopt the reasoning of Morgan.
Whether conduct constitutes submission to police authority will depend, as does much of the Fourth Amendment analysis, on "the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture." United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); see also Brendlin, 127 S.Ct. at 2409 (). Baldwin's conduct, all circumstances considered, amounted to evasion of police authority, not submission. Cf. Hernandez, 27 F.3d at 1407 (); United States v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151, 155 (4th Cir.1993) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mandola v. Cnty. of Nassau, 13–cv–3064 (DLI)(ST)
...directive to halt, he must submit to police authority, for there is no seizure without actual submission. United States v. Baldwin , 496 F.3d 215, 218 (2d Cir. 2007). In the present matter, Plaintiffs were not seized under the definition of seizure as articulated in Mendenhall . The Individ......
-
Flythe v. Dist. of Columbia
...(“Two steps towards the hood of a car does not manifest submission to the police officers' show of authority.”); United States v. Baldwin, 496 F.3d 215, 218–19 (2d Cir.2007) (finding no seizure where the suspect's vehicle momentarily pulled over but then subsequently sped off); United State......
-
Darling v. State
...have held that a temporary halt of a car by the police that then drives off does not amount to a seizure. See United States v. Baldwin , 496 F.3d 215, 218–219 (2nd Cir. 2007) (classifying Baldwin's actions in stopping his car, when approached by a police vehicle operating its emergency equi......
-
Marcano v. City of Schenectady
...more than halt temporarily; he must submit to police authority, for there is no seizure without actual submission.” United States v. Baldwin, 496 F.3d 215, 218 (2d Cir.2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Cuthbert, 466 Fed.Appx. 46, 46–47 (2d Cir.2012)......