In a case that was factually a close call, U.S. v. Hinojosa, Jr., the defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). However, he reserved his right to appeal the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence regarding the gun. Therefore, on appeal, he argued that an unconstitutional search and seizure resulted in the discovery of the weapon. This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. This Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was released on August 23, 2013.
In 2012, two Kalamazoo police officers were patrolling a high crime area of the city. They noticed the defendant parked next door to a house that was the focus of previous drug activity and citizen complaints. After he left, the officers followed him to an apartment building where there had been reports of drug manufacturing. One officer approached the defendant’s vehicle and the other parked their car in a way that did not block the driveway. The officer who stopped at the defendant’s vehicle asked him a few questions. After running the defendant’s license, the officer found that it was suspended and that he was on parole. So the defendant was arrested for driving while his license was suspended. While the arrest occurred, police asked the defendant if he had any illegal items on him, and he revealed he had a pistol.
Court concluded police engaged in a consensual encounter with defendant
After his indictment, the defendant moved in district court to suppress the pistol. The court denied the motion. However, the court was skeptical that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct the “Terry stop.” Based on credibility assessments of the officers that the vehicle approach was not coercive—and also that the driveway was not blocked—the court concluded that the police engaged in a consensual encounter with the defendant, and therefore, this was not a Fourth Amendment violation. The three types of allowable encounters between citizens and law enforcement are an investigative detention, a consensual encounter, and an arrest.
The Court stated that considering the circumstances, none of the officers’ actions prior to the arrest was a seizure, and the arrest was the result of a consensual encounter. In addition, the officers left the defendant a reasonable way to exit, so that he could leave the area at any point. Moreover, the Court found that even though one officer had his hand on his gun—which was still in the holster—this was not coercive in light of the neighborhood being a high crime area. Furthermore, the defendant clearly consented to answering the police officer’s questions.
In conclusion, the Circuit Court found that since the circumstances indicated that the encounter was consensual and did not transform into an investigative detention or a seizure, the lower court correctly denied the motion to suppress the gun. Therefore it affirmed the judgment.
If you believe your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, the trial lawyers at The Kronzek Firm PLC, are available to help you with your case.