U.S. v. Jackson, 83-2028
| Decision Date | 23 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2028,83-2028 |
| Citation | 741 F.2d 223 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mitchell JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Daniel P. Reardon, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Thomas E. Dittmeier, U.S. Atty., Henry J. Fredericks, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Mitchell Jackson appeals from his conviction for possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1202(a)(1). 566 F.Supp. 1283. Jackson argues that the seizure of the weapon violated his fourth amendment rights and the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the firearm. We affirm.
On routine patrol in a police car, St. Louis police turned into an alley where they observed Jackson and Jimmie Johnson. When Johnson saw the marked police car he shouted, "It's the police, man, run." The police chased the men and ordered them to halt. When the men stopped, they raised their hands and turned to face the police car. As the men turned the officers observed a revolver protruding from Jackson's waistband. The officers immediately approached Jackson, seized the revolver, and arrested Jackson.
We disagree with Jackson's argument that the seizure of the weapon violated his fourth amendment rights. A police officer may stop an individual as part of an investigation if, based upon specific and articulable facts, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Sanders, 631 F.2d 1309, 1312 n. 2 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127, 101 S.Ct. 946, 67 L.Ed.2d 114 (1981). When Johnson shouted, "It's the police, man, run," and the two men fled, the officers had specific and articulable facts to justify stopping the men under the Terry standard.
After police have made a Terry stop, they may conduct a pat down search to protect themselves if the particular facts lead them reasonably to believe the individual is armed. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1903, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968). The officers observed the revolver in Jackson's waistband before they went beyond the initial stop. Therefore, a pat down of Jackson before the police seized the weapon was unnecessary. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).
Furthermore, carrying a concealed weapon is illegal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williamson
...to justify a Terry investigative stop. The trial court's conclusion to the contrary was erroneous. See also United States v. Jackson, 741 F.2d 223, 224 (8th Cir.1984) (reasonable suspicion to stop when police drove into alley, observed two men, one of whom said, "it's the police, man, run,"......
-
State v. Anderson
...men appeared startled and stared at police officers sitting in their squad car and then turned and walked away); United States v. Jackson, 741 F.2d 223, 224 (8th Cir.1984) (stop upheld when police on routine patrol drove into an alley and observed two men flee while yelling, " '[i]t's the p......
-
U.S. v. Boucher, 89-2203
...a concealed weapon has been recognized as a sufficient basis for making a full custodial arrest by this court. United States v. Jackson, 741 F.2d 223, 224 (8th Cir.1984). III. Pre-Miranda Boucher next asserts that he was "in custody" long before Cooper formally arrested him, therefore his p......
-
US v. Duffy
...knew Jerylo was a policeman.6 The government's reliance on United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377 (8th Cir. 1990), United States v. Jackson, 741 F.2d 223 (8th Cir.1984) and United States v. Silva, 957 F.2d 157 (5th Cir.1992) is In Turpin and Silva, the issue was whether the police had reaso......