United States v. Nathaniel Black
707 F.3d 531, 2013 WL 657789, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4251 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seizure under the Fourth Amendment occurs when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, such as when police retain an individual's identification while frisking their companions amidst a significant show of force. An investigatory seizure is unconstitutional if it is not supported by a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, and such suspicion cannot be formed by aggregating individually innocent circumstances such as presence in a high-crime area or association with a person lawfully exercising their right to carry a firearm.
Facts:
- At approximately 10:00 p.m., police officers Zastrow and Strayer were patrolling a Charlotte, NC neighborhood known for violent crime.
- The officers observed a car driven by Dior Troupe parked at a gas station pump for three minutes; the driver did not exit the vehicle or pump gas.
- Officers followed Troupe to a nearby apartment parking lot, where he joined a group of five men, including Nathaniel Black, who were talking and laughing.
- The officers called for backup, and eventually, seven uniformed officers in marked vehicles approached the group to make what they termed 'voluntary contact'.
- Officers recognized one man in the group, Charles Gates, as having prior felony drug arrests.
- As officers approached, Troupe informed them he was lawfully and openly carrying a firearm in a holster on his hip, which an officer then seized.
- When asked for identification, Black, who was sitting down and described as 'extremely cooperative', voluntarily gave his state ID card to Officer Zastrow.
- Officer Zastrow retained Black's ID by pinning it to his own uniform and did not return it, while Officer Strayer began frisking other members of the group.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathaniel Black was charged in a one-count indictment in U.S. District Court for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Black filed a motion to suppress the firearm, arguing it was discovered as the result of an unconstitutional seizure.
- The district court held a hearing and denied Black's motion to suppress.
- Black entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- The district court sentenced Black to 180 months in prison.
- Black (Appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the Government as 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 combination of factors, including presence in a high-crime area at night, association with individuals with prior arrests, the lawful open carry of a firearm by a companion, and cooperative behavior, constitute reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Gregory
No, this combination of factors does not constitute reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory seizure. The court first determined that Black was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes not when he was physically grabbed, but earlier, at the point when Officer Zastrow retained his identification card without returning it while other officers were frisking his companions amidst a large show of police force. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Black's position would not have felt free to leave. The court then found this seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion, rejecting the government's arguments by finding each proffered fact was innocent. Troupe's lawful possession of a firearm cannot create suspicion, as it would 'eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections' for law-abiding gun owners. Gates' prior arrests cannot be imputed to Black. The officers' 'Rule of Two' (that one gun implies a second) is an arbitrary, police-created rule, not a constitutional basis for suspicion. Finally, presence in a high-crime area, even at night, is insufficient, and relying on it would disproportionately impact racial minorities.
Concurring - Chief Judge Traxler
Chief Judge Traxler wrote a separate opinion concurring in the result.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the police practice of bundling individually innocent or constitutionally protected acts to manufacture reasonable suspicion, particularly in high-crime areas. By rejecting police-created formulas like the 'Rule of Two,' the court reaffirms that judicial standards, not law enforcement policies, govern Fourth Amendment analysis. The opinion provides robust protection for the right to openly carry firearms where legal, preventing that right's exercise from becoming a de facto basis for police detention. This case serves as a strong precedent against using generalized, non-individualized factors to justify seizures, emphasizing the need for suspicion particular to the person being stopped.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Nathaniel Black