U.S. v. Coggins

• Decision Date: 01 March 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-7228,92-7228
• Citation: 986 F.2d 651
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Patrick COGGINS, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 651

986 F.2d 651

UNITED STATES of America v. Patrick COGGINS, Appellant.

No. 92-7228.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 10, 1992.

Filed March 1, 1993.

James M. Peters (argued), Office of U.S. Atty., Christiansted, St. Croix, VI, for appellee.

Melody M. Walcott (argued), Office of Federal Public Defender, Christiansted, Saint Croix, VI, for appellant.

Before: BECKER, COWEN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

On April 24, 1992, Patrick Coggins was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and for attempted possession of a controlled substance on board an aircraft. Coggins was arrested at the St. Croix airport after fleeing from a DEA agent who had briefly detained Coggins and his four travelling companions for questioning. The trial court denied Coggins' motion to suppress evidence of the crack cocaine that he abandoned while in flight from the DEA agent, and a jury found him guilty of both charges. Coggins appeals his conviction on the grounds that the DEA agent's investigative detention was an unlawful seizure and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

While we disagree with the district court's holding that there was no seizure, we will affirm the district court's finding that Agent Inouye had "reasonable suspicion," or sufficient evidence to support an investigative detention of Coggins. Thus, we will affirm his conviction.

I.

On March 26, 1991, Patrick Coggins and three other males boarded a small commercial plane for the brief flight from St. Thomas to St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Also on board that flight was Agent Mark Inouye of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), travelling on business, who recognized one of the four men as being involved in drug trafficking. Agent Inouye noted that the four men were wearing shorts and T-shirts and wore their hair in dread locks. Sergeant James Miller of the Virgin Islands Police Department met Inouye when he arrived at the St. Croix airport at 3:30 p.m. Miller recognized another of the four men as a known drug dealer. While Inouye and Miller were watching them, the four men rented a car and sped off. Inouye and Miller questioned the car rental agent and learned that the car was due to be returned in just two and one half hours. They decided to intercept the suspects on their return and to question them.

The foursome returned at about 6:00 p.m. and asked an unidentified man at the airport about the departure time of the Pan Am flight to St. Thomas. The men then drove off again. At roughly 8:30 that night, the car returned with five men in it. As the men sat together in a stairwell at the airport waiting for their flight, Inouye approached them, identified himself as a DEA agent, and asked to see their identification and plane tickets. Agent Inouye was still accompanied by Sergeant Miller of the Virgin Islands Police, who was also in plainclothes. Coggins indicated he had no identification and that the fifth man, Edward Emmanuel, held all their plane tickets. Agent Inouye examined the airline tickets that Emmanuel was holding, noticed that they were all issued with the last name of "Smith" and paid for in cash, and began to question Emmanuel.

While Agent Inouye was questioning Emmanuel, Coggins stood up and stated that he needed to go to the bathroom. Inouye told him to wait, and Coggins sat back down. Shortly after that, Coggins again stood up and, appearing very agitated, said he had to go to the bathroom immediately. Inouye insisted that Coggins had to sit down and wait until Inouye was through with the interview. Coggins then walked off, breaking into a run. Inouye yelled at Coggins to stop and chased him outside the airport. While running, Coggins pulled several small plastic bags from his pockets and threw them into the bushes outside the airport. Inouye caught up with Coggins and arrested him after a scuffle. Sergeant Miller retrieved the plastic bags. Later police investigation revealed that the bags contained crack cocaine.

II.

The jurisdiction of the district court rested on V.I.Code tit. 4, § 32 (1990). This Court's jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The central issue of this appeal is whether Coggins was unlawfully seized by Agent Inouye. If Coggins was unlawfully seized, the district court should have suppressed the evidence of the crack cocaine that Coggins discarded while fleeing with Inouye in hot pursuit. Under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine first enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful search or seizure must be suppressed at trial. As both parties concede, when the abandonment of property is precipitated by an unlawful seizure, that property also must be excluded. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Wainwright, 399 F.2d 62, 64 (5th Cir.1968).

Appellant argues that Coggins was seized at the point during Agent Inouye's questioning when Coggins requested to leave, was told not to, and initially obeyed. The Supreme Court has held that a seizure occurs "when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen ..." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). More recently, the Court has held that "a person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave...." United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.) (footnote omitted); accord INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1762, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (adopting Mendenhall test).

The Supreme Court has ruled that a reasonable person under circumstances of a somewhat similar airport investigatory stop would not believe he was free to leave while being questioned by a police officer who had possession of that person's identification and airplane tickets. In Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), the Court considered whether a suspected drug courier was seized during questioning by narcotics officers that led to a search of his luggage and his eventual arrest. In Royer, the Court held that:

Asking for and examining Royer's ticket and his driver's license were no doubt permissible in themselves, but when the officers identified themselves as narcotics agents, told Royer that he was suspected of transporting narcotics, and asked him to accompany them to the police room, while retaining his ticket and driver's license and without indicating in any way that he was free to depart, Royer was effectively seized for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. These circumstances certainly amount to a show of official authority such that "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."

460 U.S. at 501-02, 103 S.Ct. at 1326 (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877 (opinion of Stewart, J.) (footnote omitted)). Analogously, under the circumstances of this case, Coggins might not have believed that he was free to leave. He demonstrated such a belief by initially obeying Agent Inouye's order to stay.

The appellee argues that this case is factually similar to and governed by California v. Hodari D., --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), a position apparently adopted by the district court as a partial basis for its ruling on the motion to suppress. Hodari held that the Mendenhall test is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a seizure effected by a "show of authority." --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1551. Under Hodari while such a seizure requires a show of authority objectively sufficient to convince the reasonable person he is not free to leave, it also requires that the suspect actually submit to the show of authority. --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1552.

In Hodari, a juvenile standing on a street corner fled at the approach of an unmarked police car and was chased on foot through alleys by a police officer wearing a jacket with "Police" embossed on the front and back. While fleeing, Hodari was outmaneuvered and nearly ran into the pursuing officer. Upon seeing the officer, Hodari threw aside a chunk of crack cocaine. He was then tackled and arrested. The California Court of Appeals reversed Hodari's conviction, holding that he had been "seized" when he saw the police officer pursuing him and that the cocaine should have been suppressed since the officer seized him without the requisite "reasonable suspicion." The Supreme Court ...