ALBERT JONES v. UNITED STATES
154 A.3d 591
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Police Officer Blier, in uniform and tactical vest, drove a marked cruiser into a narrow alley and saw Jones fiddling with a Newport cigarette box; Blier suspected drugs.
- Blier rolled down his window, greeted Jones, and then stepped out to question him face-to-face in the confined space between the cruiser and an alley wall; Jones provided name and DOB.
- Blier asked his partner to run a WALES warrant check on Jones while Jones remained near the cruiser; before results returned, Blier asked to see the cigarette box.
- Jones handed the box to Blier (Jones testified he was commanded to place it on the cruiser), Blier opened it and found cocaine; Jones was searched and arrested.
- Trial judge credited the officer’s testimony, found the encounter short and cordial, and denied the suppression motion, concluding Jones consented to hand over the box.
- On appeal the court considered whether Jones was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment before he relinquished the box; the majority held he was, reversed the conviction, and ordered suppression of the cocaine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment before he handed over the cigarette box | Jones: Officer’s conduct (blocking path in narrow alley, face‑to‑face questioning, and the pending warrant check) would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave | Government: The encounter was brief, cordial, no force or orders, and thus consensual; no seizure occurred | Held: Seizure occurred by the time officer requested the box; encounter must be analyzed in totality and was coercive enough to constitute a seizure |
| Whether a WALES/warrant check converts a consensual encounter into a seizure | Jones: Warrant check signals detention in progress and makes a reasonable person think they cannot leave | Government: Warrant check here did not meaningfully prolong encounter and was not argued below as dispositive | Held: Warrant check while inquiry pending is a significant factor that can convert a consensual encounter into a seizure; it was material here |
| Whether consent to search the cigarette box was voluntary and attenuated from any illegality | Jones: Any purported consent was contemporaneous with unlawful seizure and thus tainted | Government: Consent was voluntary given brevity and cordiality | Held: Consent was not sufficiently independent to purge the taint; evidence suppressed |
| Whether suppression and reversal were required | Jones: Evidence obtained from unlawful seizure should be excluded | Government: No seizure; conviction should stand | Held: Suppression required; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. United States, 614 A.2d 542 (D.C. 1992) (describing WALES warrant-check system)
- Jackson v. United States, 805 A.2d 979 (D.C. 2002) (standard of appellate review on suppression and analysis of seizure)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (approach to consensual encounters and when a seizure occurs)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (examples of circumstances indicating a seizure)
- Gordon v. United States, 120 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015) (computer/warrant checks can convert consensual encounters into seizures)
- Ramsey v. United States, 73 A.3d 138 (D.C. 2013) (WALES check transformed consensual encounter into seizure)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion standard and definition of seizure)