United States v. Belin
868 F.3d 43 (2017)
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a combination of factors, including a suspect's criminal history, gang affiliation, presence in a high-crime area, evasive behavior, and unusual nervousness, can collectively establish reasonable suspicion to justify a stop-and-frisk, particularly when the suspected crime is unlawful possession of a firearm.
Facts:
- On September 17, 2012, the Boston Police Department received a call about a fight near Norfolk Park, an area known for recent firearms arrests and incidents.
- Officers Bissonnette and Finn responded and observed a group of five men, including King Belin, walking on the sidewalk.
- As the officers' vehicle approached and stopped, Belin separated from the group and hurried away from the officers toward the park.
- Officer Bissonnette recognized Belin from a 2009 firearm arrest and knew from a police database that Belin was a member of the Norfolk Street Bulls gang.
- Belin was wearing a heavy, non-tight-fitting black hooded sweatshirt on an evening with temperatures just below seventy degrees Fahrenheit.
- Bissonnette followed Belin, addressed him by name, and caught up to him. When Bissonnette asked if Belin had anything on him, Belin became unusually nervous.
- Belin's demeanor changed, he took a deep breath, his breathing became quick and shallow, and he looked around as if seeking an escape route.
- Bissonnette then grabbed one of Belin’s arms and reached for his waistband, initiating a struggle during which a firearm was discovered.
Procedural Posture:
- King Belin was indicted in federal district court on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Belin filed a motion to suppress the firearm and other evidence, arguing that the stop-and-frisk violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The U.S. District Court held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a jury trial, Belin was convicted of the charge.
- Belin appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the combination of a suspect's prior firearm arrest, known gang affiliation, presence in a high-crime area, evasive movement upon seeing police, and unusual nervousness when questioned about possessing a weapon create reasonable suspicion to justify a stop-and-frisk under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kayatta, J.
Yes, the combination of factors created reasonable suspicion to justify the stop-and-frisk. The court determined that the seizure, or stop, occurred not when the officer first approached Belin, but at the moment Officer Bissonnette physically grabbed Belin's arm. The court found that the stop and frisk were effectively simultaneous and that the justification for both rested on the same set of facts known up to that moment. The court analyzed the totality of the circumstances and held that while no single factor was sufficient on its own, their collective weight established reasonable suspicion. The key factors were: (1) Belin's prior unlawful firearm possession and known gang affiliation; (2) his presence in a high-crime area known for gun violence; (3) his evasive action of peeling off from his group and hurrying away upon seeing police; (4) his heavy clothing capable of concealing a weapon; and (5) his 'strong reaction' of unusual nervousness that occurred specifically when asked if he was carrying anything. The court reasoned that a person who is unlawfully armed and unusually nervous is reasonably viewed as dangerous enough to justify a frisk for officer safety.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' framework for reasonable suspicion, illustrating how a collection of individually innocent or weak factors can combine to justify a police intrusion. Its primary significance lies in explicitly linking the reasonable suspicion for a specific crime (unlawful firearm possession) with the justification for a protective frisk. The court suggests that when police reasonably suspect a person of unlawfully possessing a firearm, the added element of unusual nervousness is sufficient to establish that the person is 'armed and dangerous,' thus warranting a frisk without needing much more evidence of a specific threat. This potentially lowers the threshold for frisking individuals suspected of gun possession compared to other types of crimes.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Belin (2017)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"