Carter v. United States
Unpublished (23-CF-0388, D.C. 2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when, considering all circumstances, an objective and reasonable person in the defendant's shoes, accounting for their race and generalized lived experiences, would not have felt free to terminate the encounter and leave, especially when faced with an impressive show of police authority and accusatory, repetitive questioning.
Facts:
- Five officers from the Metropolitan Police Department's Gun Recovery Unit (GRU) drove two unmarked vehicles into Ward Four, a predominantly Black area experiencing an uptick in shootings, and observed ten Black men conversing on a sidewalk.
- Four officers, wearing tactical vests with "police" written on the back and visible police equipment, emerged from their vehicles and approached the group, with Officers Sanders and Guzman announcing they were "checking for firearms."
- Officer DelBorrell looped around a parked vehicle to approach Donte Carter from behind.
- Officer DelBorrell asked Carter if he had "nothing on" him, to which Carter replied "no" and twice lifted his shirt to show his waistband.
- Officer DelBorrell then asked Carter, "[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quick?" (Mr. Carter complied).
- As Carter raised his pants in response, Officer Guzman, who was approaching, noticed an L-shaped bulge in Carter's groin area, which he believed to be a firearm.
- Officer Guzman then instructed Carter to "[s]tand up . . . one more time," pointing to Carter's right groin area.
- Carter replied, "[t]his is my phone," and pulled a phone from his right pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- Donte J. Carter was charged with eight offenses connected to the firearm.
- Carter moved to suppress the firearm as well as a statement he made, arguing they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court (Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Hon. Lynn Leibovitz) denied Carter's motion to suppress, holding that he was seized only after he pulled his pants up, by which point officers had reasonable suspicion.
- Carter was subsequently convicted on all eight counts following a trial on stipulated facts.
- Carter timely appealed his conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was Donte J. Carter seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer requested that he "hike" his pants up, after Carter had already denied carrying a firearm and twice lifted his shirt?
Opinions:
Majority - Senior Judge Washington
Yes, Donte J. Carter was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when Officer DelBorrell requested that he hike his pants up. The court applied the 'objective and reasonable person' test, explicitly integrating the defendant's race and lived experiences. The interaction displayed several coercive features: four GRU officers in tactical gear converged on a group of Black men in a heavily policed area; Officer DelBorrell approached Carter from behind and immediately asked an accusatory question about a firearm; and despite Carter's denials and lifting his shirt twice, the officer pressed further by asking him to 'hike his pants up.' The court acknowledged that Black men are disproportionately subjected to police violence and distrust law enforcement due to historical and ongoing biases, leading them to feel especially apprehensive and compelled to comply with police demands to mitigate risks, even when they would otherwise be free to leave. The GRU's reputation for aggression and selective targeting of Black individuals further contributed to this coercive environment. Therefore, an objective and reasonable Black man in Carter's shoes would have felt compelled to comply, leading to a seizure not based on reasonable suspicion.
Concurring - Associate Judge McLeese
Yes, Donte J. Carter was unlawfully seized. Justice McLeese concurred in the judgment, accepting as binding precedent the court's prior holding in Dozier v. United States that a suspect's race may properly be considered in assessing whether police conduct constitutes a seizure. Given this binding consideration and acknowledging the closeness of the case, Justice McLeese agreed with the majority's conclusion that Mr. Carter was seized.
Analysis:
This case significantly advances Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in the District of Columbia by explicitly integrating a suspect's race and lived experiences into the 'objective and reasonable person' seizure analysis. It recognizes that police interactions are perceived differently by people of color due to historical context and disproportionate policing, making compliance often a perceived necessity rather than a voluntary act. This ruling sets a precedent for courts to consider systemic issues of racial bias in policing when evaluating whether an individual was seized, potentially leading to more findings of seizure in similar contexts involving racial minorities.
