United States v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 31 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–50165.,13–50165.
• Citation: United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2014)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Reginald Aaron EDWARDS, aka Baby R–Mac, aka Arron Reginald Edwards, aka Reggie Aaron Edwards, aka Reginald Aron Edwards, aka Timothy Green, aka R–Mac, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

761 F.3d 977

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Reginald Aaron EDWARDS, aka Baby R–Mac, aka Arron Reginald Edwards, aka Reggie Aaron Edwards, aka Reginald Aron Edwards, aka Timothy Green, aka R–Mac, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 13–50165.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2014.

Filed July 31, 2014.

Sean K. Kennedy, Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA; and Davina T. Chen(argued), Glendale, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.

André Birotte Jr., United States Attorney, Robert E. Dugdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, Max B. Shiner(argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Violent & Organized Crime Section, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding.D.C.No. 2:12–cr–00751–GAF–1.

Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., KIM McLANE WARDLAW and RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

FISHER, Circuit Judge:

Reginald Aaron Edwards was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after an anonymous caller reported a shooting to a 911 dispatcher.Police officers responding to the 911 call found Edwards in the vicinity of the reported shooting and discovered that he matched the description of the reported suspect.They stopped Edwards, frisked him and found he had a gun, and then arrested him.Edwards conditionally pled guilty and now challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence police obtained when they stopped him.Specifically, Edwards contends that the officers' conduct converted his detention before the gun was discovered from an investigatory stop into an arrest, and that even if Edwards' detention was merely an investigatory stop, the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him.We hold that the officers properly conducted an investigatory stop and had reasonable suspicion to do so.

I.Background

On May 3, 2012, at 7:40 p.m., the Inglewood Police Department received a 911 call from an unidentified male reporting that a “young black male” at the corner of West Boulevard and Hyde Park Boulevard was shooting at passing cars, including the caller's.The caller provided additional details about the suspect during the five-minute call, telling the 911 dispatcher that the shooter was between 5 feet 7 inches and 5 feet 9 inches in height and “maybe 19, 20” years old.The caller initially said that the shooter was wearing “all black” but later clarified that he was wearing a black shirt and gray khaki pants.The caller also reported that the shooter had a black handgun and, after shooting, was entering “Penny Pincher's Liquor” store.

Police officers Ryan Green and Julian Baksh began receiving information about the call from the dispatcher at 7:42 p.m.The dispatcher requested that officers “[r]espond to shots fired in the area of Hyde Park and West” and told officers that, according to a reporting party, a black man, “[a]pproximately 5 '7? to 5'9? wearing a black sweatshirt and gray khaki pants,” was “[w]alking around shooting at passing vehicles” and was now possibly inside Penny Pincher's Liquor.Green and Baksh arrived on the scene at around 7:45 p.m. and parked two blocks from the shooter's reported location.After leaving their vehicle, Green and Baksh observed Edwards walking eastbound approximately 75 feet from the liquor store.Green testified that Edwards matched the description of the suspect reported in the anonymous call.Edwards is African–American, was 5 feet 11 inches and 26 years old at the time, and was wearing a black, long-sleeve shirt and gray pants.Green also testified that “[t]here was only one other individual in the area, a male Hispanic, wearing a black and green heavy jacket and blue jeans.”

Green notified other police units of Edwards' location, and officers John Ausmus and Landon Poirier quickly responded.Ausmus and Poirier detained Edwards as well as the “male Hispanic,” while Green and Baksh covered them.All four officers had their weapons drawn as they approached the two men.Ausmus commanded both men to kneel on the pavement.Ausmus handcuffed Edwards while he was on his knees, and then stood Edwards up and had him spread his legs.Ausmus began patting down Edwards and felt a hard object above Edwards' right knee, inside the pant leg.Ausmus pulled on the pants to jiggle the item out, and a silver .22–caliber revolver fell out of Edwards' pants and onto the pavement beside Edwards' feet.The 911 dispatcher had a call-back number for the reporting party, and the officers at the scene requested the dispatcher to call back the reporting party.The anonymous caller had already left the scene, however, and did not want to be involved with the case.Thereafter, the officers transported Edwards to the police station.

A grand jury charged Edwards with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).Edwards moved to suppress all physical evidence obtained as a result of his initial stop and frisk.After an October 2012 hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress under United States v. Terry–Crespo,356 F.3d 1170(9th Cir.2004), finding that the officers did not need probable cause to detain Edwards because they had reasonable suspicion necessary for the stop.Edwards entered a conditional guilty plea, and the district court sentenced him to 48 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release.

II.Discussion

A.Standard of Review

“We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress.”United States v. Crawford,372 F.3d 1048, 1053(9th Cir.2004)(en banc).“The determination of whether a seizure exceeds the bounds of [an investigatory] stop and becomes a de facto arrest is reviewed de novo.”United States v. Miles,247 F.3d 1009, 1012(9th Cir.2001)(internal quotation marks omitted).“A determination whether there was reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory ‘stop and frisk’ is a mixed question of law and fact, also reviewed de novo.”United States v. Burkett,612 F.3d 1103, 1106(9th Cir.2010).

B. Edwards' Detention Did Not Amount To An Arrest

Edwards challenges the district court's determination that his detention leading to the discovery of the gun was merely an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889(1968), and not an arrest requiring probable cause.¹The totality of the circumstances determines whether and when an investigatory stop becomes an arrest.SeeWashington v. Lambert,98 F.3d 1181, 1185(9th Cir.1996).In looking at the totality of the circumstances, we examine two main components of the detention.Seeid.First is “the intrusiveness of the stop, i.e., the aggressiveness of the police methods and how much the plaintiff's liberty was restricted.”Id.Under this component, we“review the situation from the perspective of the person seized,” assessing whether “a reasonable innocent person in these circumstances would ... have felt free to leave after brief questioning.”United States v. Delgadillo–Velasquez,856 F.2d 1292, 1295–96(9th Cir.1988).Second is “the justification for the use of such tactics, i.e., whether the officer had sufficient basis to fear for his safety to warrant the intrusiveness of the action taken.”Lambert,98 F.3d at 1185.This “inquiry is undertaken ... from the perspective of law enforcement,” while bearing in mind that “the purpose of a Terry stop is to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence.”United States v. Guzman–Padilla,573 F.3d 865, 884(9th Cir.2009)(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).“The second inquiry frequently proves determinative.”Id.

Here, there is no doubt that the police were intrusive in stopping Edwards.Four officers pointed their weapons towardhim, and he was forced to kneel and was handcuffed before being patted down.See, e.g., Lambert,98 F.3d at 1188(“[I]f the police draw their guns it greatly increases the seriousness of the stop.”);United States v. Bautista,684 F.2d 1286, 1289(9th Cir.1982)(“[H]andcuffing substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of an otherwise routine investigatory detention and is not part of a typical Terry stop.”).The officers used aggressive methods and restricted Edwards' liberty.

However, as we have repeatedly explained, “because we consider both the inherent danger of the situation and the intrusiveness of the police action, ... pointing a weapon at a suspect and handcuffing him, or ordering him to lie on the ground, or placing him in a police car will not automatically convert an investigatory stop into an arrest that requires probable cause.”Lambert,98 F.3d at 1186(emphasis in original).In Miles, officers responded to a report that a black man wearing an oversized jacket and riding a bicycle had fired a gun at a residence.See247 F.3d at 1010–11.When they found a suspect fitting the description approximately six blocks from the residence and standing in the immediate vicinity of a bicycle, the officers approached the suspect with their guns drawn, ordered him to kneel and handcuffed him.Seeid. at 1011.We concluded these actions were reasonable and this initial stop did not amount to an arrest, given that the officers “had a report of gunfire and had legitimate safety concerns” and “made an on-the-spot assessment of the restraint necessary to control the situation.”Id. at 1013.Particularly relevant here, we noted that “[w]e have permitted the use of intrusive means to effect a stop where the police have information that the suspect is currently armed or the stop closely follows a violent crime.Under such circumstances, holding a suspect at gunpoint, requiring him to go to his knees or lie down on the ground, and/or handcuffing him will not amount to an arrest.”Id.(citation omitted).²

Here, as in Miles, the officers' aggressive conduct was reasonable...