United States v. Lavelle Stover
808 F.3d 991, 2015 WL 9259062, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22071 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seizure under the Fourth Amendment has not occurred until an individual submits to a police officer's show of authority. An individual who ignores police commands and moves away from officers after a show of authority has not submitted, and therefore any contraband discarded before submission is considered abandoned and is not the fruit of a seizure.
Facts:
- In the early morning, Prince George’s County Police Officers Justice Halsey and Jesus Yambot were patrolling a high-crime area in Temple Hills, Maryland.
- The officers observed a Chevy Silverado, driven by Lavelle Stover, double-parked in a private apartment building parking lot.
- Due to the out-of-state plates, late hour, and double-parking, the officers decided to investigate.
- The officers parked their marked police vehicle at an angle behind the Silverado, blocking it from leaving, and activated their emergency lights and a spotlight on Stover's vehicle.
- Stover exited his Silverado and opened the rear driver's side door.
- Officer Halsey issued a verbal command for Stover to get back inside his vehicle.
- Stover did not acknowledge the command and instead walked quickly about five or six feet to the front of his Silverado.
- Stover then tossed a handgun into the grass in front of the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Lavelle Stover for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- In the U.S. District Court, Stover filed a motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an illegal seizure.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding that Stover was not seized until after he had abandoned the gun.
- A jury convicted Stover, and the district court sentenced him to 57 months in prison.
- Stover (appellant) appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing against the United States (appellee).
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 seizure under the Fourth Amendment occur before an individual abandons contraband if, after police make a show of authority by blocking his vehicle and activating emergency lights, the individual exits his vehicle, ignores a police command to return, and walks to the front of the vehicle before discarding a weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Motz
No, a seizure does not occur until the individual submits to the show of authority. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, which require both a 'show of authority' by police and 'submission' by the citizen. While the police officers' actions of blocking Stover's car and using their lights constituted a show of authority, Stover did not submit. Instead of complying with the order to get back in the car, he exited the vehicle, disobeyed the command, and walked away from the officers. Citing California v. Hodari D., the court reasoned that until Stover submitted, there was at most an 'attempted seizure,' which the Fourth Amendment does not protect. Stover only submitted to police authority after he discarded the gun and was confronted by an armed officer. Therefore, the gun was abandoned property, not the fruit of a seizure, and was admissible evidence.
Dissenting - Judge Gregory
Yes, a seizure occurred at the moment the police made their initial show of authority, and Stover's subsequent actions did not negate that seizure. The majority applies the wrong test by focusing on Stover's failure to affirmatively 'signal' compliance, a standard from Hodari D. that applies to fleeing suspects. Because Stover's vehicle was already parked, the 'passive acquiescence' test from Brendlin v. California should govern. The seizure was complete when the police blocked Stover's truck with their lights on, as a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Stover passively acquiesced by remaining at the 'focal point of the investigation' rather than fleeing. His movement to the front of the car was an attempt to evade a future search by abandoning evidence, not an attempt to evade the seizure itself. Therefore, the gun was abandoned after the illegal seizure began and should have been suppressed.
Analysis:
This decision refines the concept of 'submission' for Fourth Amendment seizure purposes, particularly in situations where a suspect's response is ambiguous. The court distinguishes between passive acquiescence and active non-compliance, holding that disobeying a direct police order and moving away, even without outright flight, constitutes non-submission. This ruling narrows the scope of the 'passive acquiescence' standard from Brendlin, making it more difficult for defendants who take evasive actions short of fleeing to argue they were seized before abandoning contraband. The case reinforces the two-part seizure test from Hodari D., requiring both a show of authority and a corresponding act of submission for the Fourth Amendment's protections to apply.
