Anthony Hooks v. United States, 208 A.3d 741

Background

Hooks was sitting in a folding chair on a concrete path leading to a private townhouse yard when four uniformed, armed narcotics officers exited an unmarked car, walked up the confined path, and the lead officer commanded him to “get up.”
Hooks complied; after standing the officer observed a bag of marijuana in his pocket, the officers handcuffed him, and a search incident to arrest recovered a handgun.
At a pretrial suppression hearing the judge denied Hooks’s motion to suppress, finding either no seizure occurred or, alternatively, that officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to effect a Terry stop for obstructing a walkway under D.C. Code § 22-1307.
The government did not contend there was probable cause to arrest; its theory on appeal was that a Terry stop was justified by reasonable suspicion Hooks was violating § 22-1307.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the legal question de novo, accepted trial-court factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and addressed whether Hooks was seized and, if so, whether the seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hooks)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Hooks was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment	The four armed, uniformed officers converging on a confined path and the officer’s command to “get up” communicated that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore them — a seizure occurred.	No seizure: compliance with a request to stand does not necessarily mean a person was seized; this was a consensual encounter or at most nonseizure.	Held: A seizure occurred — totality of circumstances (threatening presence, command tone, confined path) would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave.
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop under § 22‑1307	Officers lacked the required basis because § 22‑1307 makes the offense contingent on continuing to obstruct after an order to disperse; there was no evidence they had ordered Hooks to cease.	Officers reasonably could have believed Hooks was obstructing a walkway covered by § 22‑1307, justifying a Terry stop; any reasonable mistake about the law might be excused under Heien.	Held: No reasonable suspicion under § 22‑1307 because the statute requires continuation after an officer’s instruction and there was no instruction; Heien does not excuse this half‑statute mistake.
Whether suppressed evidence should be excluded or excused (exclusionary rule)	Suppression required to deter clearly unlawful seizures and searches; the officers’ legal mistake was not objectively reasonable.	Government urged that suppression is inappropriate for reasonable mistakes of law (citing Heien/Herring policy arguments).	Held: Exclusionary rule applies; the seizure/search violated the Fourth Amendment and suppression is warranted.

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (defines permissible investigative stops and seizure inquiry)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (reasonable‑person test: would one feel free to decline officers’ requests)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (examples of circumstances that may indicate a seizure)
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistake of law can sometimes support reasonable suspicion)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (limits application of exclusionary rule for negligent recordkeeping errors)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree and exclusionary rule rationale)
(Albert) Jones v. United States, 154 A.3d 591 (D.C. 2017) (D.C. precedent on seizures in confined spaces and multi‑officer encounters)