U.S. v. Meadows

Decision Date08 July 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-1122.,08-1122.
Citation571 F.3d 131
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy J. MEADOWS, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Bruce Green, for appellant.

Paul G. Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, STAHL, and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

In this case, defendant Timothy J. Meadows ("Meadows") appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Meadows challenges the district court's refusal to suppress his statements, the district court's handling of his status as a felon during trial, certain statements made in closing arguments by the prosecutor, and certain jury instructions. After careful consideration, we affirm.

I. Background

The evidence presented at the suppression hearing was as follows.

On July 10, 2006, Brockton police officer Richard Gaucher was on a detail near the Battles Farm housing complex in Brockton, Massachusetts. At approximately 9:00 PM, he observed a car with three occupants drive into the complex. Gaucher noticed that the car was missing a rear license plate light and a signal light. Gaucher then activated his lights and pulled the car over. Gaucher observed the passengers moving within the car. The car then stopped, the front passenger door opened, and the passenger, later identified as Meadows, fled on foot toward nearby townhouses.

Gaucher used his radio to communicate that he had made a motor vehicle stop and required assistance for foot pursuit. Gaucher questioned the driver, Shawn Meadows, who identified the person who ran as his brother, Timothy Meadows.1 Officers Michael Norman and Keith Shanks also arrived at the scene. They knew Shawn Meadows, who informed them that his sister, Tia Meadows, lived in the Battles Farm complex. Her address was relayed over the radio, and the dispatcher indicated that a family disturbance was reported at that address earlier in the day.

Officers Norman and Shanks proceeded to Tia Meadows's unit. Gaucher testified that Tia Meadows's unit was not in the direction that Timothy Meadows initially ran. Meanwhile, Gaucher found bullets in the shorts of the other passenger, John DePina. Gaucher announced that discovery on the police radio, and warned that Timothy Meadows might be armed. The dispatcher also reported that Timothy Meadows had been charged with a firearm offense in 1999. Norman and Shanks received these warnings before arriving at Tia Meadows's unit.

Tia Meadows allowed Norman and Shanks to enter and indicated that Timothy Meadows was upstairs. Shanks called to Timothy Meadows to come downstairs. He did so, and the officers handcuffed him and led him outside. Gaucher proceeded towards Tia Meadows's home, encountered Timothy Meadows and Shanks outside, and read him his Miranda rights. Gaucher asked him if he had a gun, and he said he did not. Meanwhile, Norman conducted a protective sweep of Tia Meadows's home.

At some point, Gaucher learned that another officer had discovered a firearm in the courtyard near where Meadows ran from the car. The firearm was found approximately five minutes after Meadows was handcuffed.2

Gaucher then spoke to two residents of the housing complex, a mother and daughter, who saw an individual flee from the car, run across the courtyard, and fall down at an area in the center of the courtyard. The residents had previously directed another officer to this area, where the officer discovered the firearm. Gaucher asked the witnesses to look out their windows to see if they saw the individual who ran. Meadows was standing outside, handcuffed, next to a police cruiser. The witnesses identified Meadows. Meadows was then formally placed under arrest. Meadows later made incriminating statements, detailed below.

At the suppression hearing, Gaucher also used a map to show the location of the stop, the direction Meadows ran, and the location of Meadows's sister's home. The government also played excerpts of a tape recording of the police dispatch channel, which helped establish the order of events.

At the suppression hearing, the court suppressed the witnesses' identification as unduly suggestive. The court refused to suppress the incriminating statements and ruled orally:

So [the police] knew they were looking for Timothy Meadows. They knew that Meadows had fled on foot from a routine traffic stop. They knew that Meadows had followed a rather strange route through the housing complex to get to 311, an evasive route, if you will. He just didn't run directly there. They knew that there had been a report of a domestic disturbance at that location. They knew that a passenger in the car was carrying ammunition for a firearm. And they knew that Meadows had previously been charged with firearm offenses. In light of that knowledge—oh, also, they observed that when Meadows came downstairs he was sweating and out of breath, though he had, he says he had been there for some time.3 All of those circumstances, which I find credible, are sufficient under the reasonableness test of the Fourth Amendment to in effect seize him and sort the matter out. So it was not unreasonable to place handcuffs on him. It was not unreasonable to do a protective sweep which protective sweep was reasonable, and likewise it was reasonable to bring him outside where the safety of the officers could better be obtained, the safety of the officers and people in the various apartments, especially in light of the fact that other residents in the housing project, I infer, were coming out of their apartments to see what was going on. So, so far that's all reasonable. At that time, Officer Gaucher administers Miranda warnings and inquires of Mr. Meadows. Mr. Meadows denies he has a weapon, and at that time a weapon is found, sufficiently in the area that it is a reasonable inference that the weapon most likely was discarded by the person who fled from the vehicle which person was Mr. Meadows. That constitutes probable cause for his arrest and he was appropriately arrested. The motion to suppress, other than the part I already allowed, is denied. Mr. Meadows' rights are saved. All the matters that follow thereafter, he having been properly administered the Miranda warnings, are not suppressed and may be used by the government.

The case then proceeded to trial. Prior to jury selection, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury simply that Meadows was among the class of people not allowed to carry a firearm. The court stated it would not force the prosecution to go that far, and that the defendant only had a right to require the prosecution to stipulate the existence of a prior felony. During jury selection the court explained that Meadows was a felon and was not permitted to possess a firearm. The court then asked whether Meadows's status as a felon would influence the jurors. During pretrial instructions, the court also stated that Meadows was "among that group of people whom under the law they never again can possess a firearm or a piece of ammunition."

At trial, the government called the mother and daughter from the housing complex who witnessed an individual fall in the field after running from the car. The mother testified that after the individual fell, he made a motion patting the ground, then got up and kept running. She testified that she told an officer what she saw, that the officer went to that area with a flashlight, and that the officer called other police officers who took pictures of that area. She later learned that a gun was found in the spot where the individual fell. She did not identify Meadows, but only described the individual as wearing blue jeans and a white shirt. The daughter also testified to the same events. And the officer who found the gun also corroborated that testimony. The officer also testified that the grass was bent, so that it looked like someone had fallen there. The government also introduced Meadows' grass-stained jeans.

Shawn Meadows also testified that his sister, Tia Meadows, had been involved in domestic disputes with her boyfriend, Darrell Rodney, on the date in question. Shawn Meadows explained that he had already been over to her house once that day, without Timothy Meadows, and had a physical altercation with Rodney. After another dispute arose later that day, Shawn Meadows decided to change the locks on the apartment. On the way, Shawn Meadows picked up his brother, Timothy Meadows, and Timothy Meadows' neighbor, John DePina. Shawn Meadows testified that when they were pulled over, Timothy Meadows ran from the car. Shawn Meadows never saw a gun on Timothy Meadows, nor heard him discuss a gun or violence. John DePina, the other passenger, testified that while in the car on the way to Battles Farm housing complex, Timothy Meadows asked him to hold two bullets.

Officer Shanks also testified. After Shawn Meadows told Shanks and Norman where his sister lived, the two proceeded to that unit. Inside, Shanks called up to Timothy Meadows to come downstairs. Meadows did so and was sweating and out of breath. Shanks and Norman frisked and handcuffed Meadows. Meadows stated that he had been at his sister's house all day. Shanks testified that on the ride to the police station, Meadows first said that the gun was not his and was not found on him, but later began asking the officers if he could cooperate and get help to get out of his situation.

Officer Gaucher also testified, again recounting the events of that night. He recounted that Meadows initially denied being in possession of a firearm. He further testified that after being given his Miranda warnings, being arrested, and being taken to the station, Meadows told him that he had a five-month old daughter and that he wanted to cooperate to avoid going back to jail. According to Gaucher,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • United States v. Webb
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 9 Noviembre 2016
    .... On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed both Defendants' convictions. United States v. Webb , 70 Fed.Appx. 2 (2003) ; United States v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131 (2009). The Supreme Court denied Webb's petition for certiorari on December 1, 2003, Webb v. United States , 540 U.S. 1065, 124 S.Ct.......
  • United States v. Cruz-Rivera
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 15 Septiembre 2021
    ...558, 583 (1st Cir. 2017) (first citing United States v. Auch, 187 F.3d 125, 129 (1st Cir. 1999) ; then quoting United States v. Meadows, 571 F.3d 131, 145 (1st Cir. 2009) ). Where a timely objection is lodged to a statement made by the government in closing argument, "[w]e review de novo wh......
  • United States v. Portillo-Saravia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 10 Mayo 2019
    ...to perform a pat down for firearms when they observed that defendant's vehicle contained a box of ammunition); United States v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131, 142 (1st Cir. 2009) ("We think it uncontroversial that the discovery of ammunition—but not a gun—in the car from which a suspect fled could......
  • United States v. Ponzo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 7 Abril 2017
    ..., 187 F.3d 125, 129 (1st Cir. 1999). But they can "ask jurors to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence." United States v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131, 145 (1st Cir. 2009). And after carefully reviewing Ponzo's claims, we can say that none warrants reversal because the prosecutor confined ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Other Grounds for Suppressing Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...recording of police interrogations is not constitutionally required: SUPPRESSING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 12-3 §12:04 • UnitedStates v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir.) • UnitedStates v. Tykarsky , 446 F.3d 458, 477 (3d Cir. 2006) • UnitedStates v. Montgomery , 390 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2004)......
  • Other Grounds for Suppressing Confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2017
    ...The following courts held that recording of police interrogations is not constitutionally required: • United States v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir.) • United States v. Tykarsky , 446 F.3d 458, 477 (3d Cir. 2006) • United States v. Montgomery , 390 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. ......
  • Other grounds for suppressing confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...The following courts held that recording of police interrogations is not constitutionally required: • United States v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir.) • United States v. Tykarsky , 446 F.3d 458, 477 (3d Cir. 2006) • United States v. Montgomery , 390 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. ......
  • Other grounds for suppressing confessions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2020
    ...The following courts held that recording of police interrogations is not constitutionally required: • United States v. Meadows , 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir.) • United States v. Tykarsky , 446 F.3d 458, 477 (3d Cir. 2006) • United States v. Montgomery , 390 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. ......

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