United States v. Jones
2012 WL 1632566, 678 F.3d 293, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9513 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A consensual police-citizen encounter becomes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment when, under the totality of the circumstances, an officer's conduct, such as conspicuously following a vehicle, blocking its exit, and making immediate intrusive requests, would communicate to a reasonable person that they are not free to terminate the encounter.
Facts:
- Detective Edward Aeschlimann and Officer Adrienne Rice were patrolling a high-crime neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia, in a marked police cruiser.
- The officers observed a Dodge Avenger with New York tags occupied by four African American men, including the driver, Frederick Jones.
- Believing the occupants were involved in drug trafficking based solely on the out-of-state tags and location, the officers turned their cruiser around and closely followed the Avenger, though they witnessed no traffic violations.
- Jones turned into the driveway of the Graystone Apartments, and the officers followed him onto the private property.
- After Jones parked in a diagonal space and exited his vehicle, the officers parked their cruiser in the single lane of traffic, obstructing the Avenger's only path to exit the complex.
- The officers immediately approached Jones and, without any preliminary conversation, asked him to lift his shirt to check for weapons.
- After Jones complied, the officers immediately asked for his consent to a pat-down search for weapons, to which Jones also complied.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury charged Frederick Jones with possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of controlled substances.
- Jones filed a motion to suppress the firearm and marijuana in the U.S. District Court, arguing the evidence was obtained through an illegal seizure.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the initial police encounter was consensual.
- Following the denial of his motion, a jury convicted Jones of the charged crime.
- Jones appealed the district court's denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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 a police encounter constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment when officers, without observing any traffic violation, conspicuously follow a vehicle from a public road onto private property, block the vehicle's exit with their patrol car, and immediately ask the driver to lift his shirt and submit to a pat-down search?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Motz
Yes, the police encounter constituted a seizure because a reasonable person in Jones's position would not have felt free to terminate the encounter. The court determined this by looking at the totality of the circumstances, which cumulatively amounted to a show of authority that restrained Jones's liberty before the officers had any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Key factors included that the uniformed officers in a marked car conspicuously followed Jones, blocked his vehicle's exit, targeted him while ignoring his passengers who walked away, and made immediate, intrusive requests to lift his shirt and submit to a pat-down. This conduct communicated that Jones was the subject of a targeted criminal investigation, not a routine or consensual encounter, thus transforming it into a non-consensual seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between a consensual encounter and a Fourth Amendment seizure, particularly in encounters involving vehicles. It establishes that a series of police actions, each potentially permissible on its own, can collectively create a coercive environment that constitutes a seizure. The ruling underscores that police cannot manufacture a 'consensual' encounter by first cornering a suspect through acts like tailing and blocking their vehicle. It reinforces the objective nature of the 'free to leave' test, emphasizing that conduct signaling a particularized criminal investigation—such as immediate and intrusive questioning—weighs heavily in favor of finding a seizure.
