US v. Hawkins: Police were surveilling a car in a high crime area. They knew the driver, Jonhson, was on supervised release following a drug conviction, but knew nothing about the passenger, Williams. Police followed the car to an apartment complex (know from prior drug investigations) where another man, Byrd (also known from prior drug investigations) approached the car, reached inside, and talked with the occupants. After Byrd walked away, Hawkins approached and got in the back seat.
Police initiated a traffic stop after the car drove away. The officer got slightly different answers about who Byrd was (Williams said he was asking for a cigarette, Johnson said they talked about a job) and summoned a K9 unit. The drug dog alerted and, while the officers did not find any drugs, they did find a firearm in Hawkins’ waistband pursuant to a patdown. Hawkins was charged with possession of a firearm after sustained a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence and unsuccessfully sought to suppress the firearm.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Hawkins’ motion to suppress, concluding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop. It rejected the Government’s reliance on four factors – the “locations involved,” Johnson’s prior drug conviction, the interaction with Byrd, and the differing stories about Byrd. The court found that none of them, separately or taken together, created reasonable suspicion. The court rejected the Government’s position that the officer’s had witnessed a drug deal between Byrd and the others in the car, noting that they officers did not see anything exchanged between them or Byrd walking away with anything. The court also found that the stories about Byrd’s interaction were not so different as to be suspicious.
Congrats to the Defender office in NDWV on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment