Bingman v. United States, 267 A.3d 1084

Background

Police executed a search warrant at a warehouse suspected of hosting a temporary marijuana “pop-up” event; Michael Bingman was observed exiting the building.
Officers saw a sheathed knife at Bingman’s waistband in plain view, detained him (no arrest warrant), and conducted a Terry patdown.
During the frisk officers recovered a semi-automatic pistol, ammunition, and two large-capacity magazines; Bingman was convicted on gun-related charges and sought suppression.
The trial court denied suppression; on appeal the majority assumed a lawful brief detention under Michigan v. Summers but evaluated whether the frisk was supported by reasonable belief that Bingman was armed and dangerous.
The majority vacated convictions, reasoning the totality of circumstances (warrant for marijuana only, vague officer testimony about weapons at pop-ups, lack of description of the knife, benign clothing/cargo pants) did not support a reasonable belief Bingman was armed and dangerous; the dissent would have affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bingman)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the Terry frisk was justified	Frisk violated Fourth Amendment because officers lacked reasonable, particularized suspicion he was armed and dangerous	Officers reasonably believed he was armed/dangerous based on visible sheathed knife, event context, and clothing	Majority: frisk unlawful; vacated convictions.
Whether presence at premises being searched for drugs supports frisk	Mere presence at a location licensed for marijuana search does not alone justify a frisk	Presence at a drug-related pop-up supports suspicion because weapons commonly accompany drug activity	Majority: presence alone insufficient; government’s generalized assertion about pop-ups unreliable.
Whether openly carried sheathed knife justified a frisk for concealed weapons	Openly visible knife (undescribed) does not establish concealed-weapon risk or illegality and thus cannot alone justify a patdown	Visible knife is a potential danger and part of totality that justifies further search for other weapons	Majority: knife appearance was not described; without more it did not meaningfully support belief of concealed weapon.
Whether officers’ generalized experience and clothing cues create reasonable suspicion	Vague testimony about finding weapons at some pop-ups and observation of cargo pants/BDU-like clothing are conclusory and speculative	Officers’ experience, the knife, and clothing (large pockets suggesting security role) are reasonable inferences supporting frisk	Majority: gave little weight to conclusory testimony and benign clothing; dissent: give due weight to officer inferences and would uphold frisk.

Key Cases Cited

Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (officers executing a premises search warrant may briefly detain occupants)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (protective frisk permitted where officer reasonably believes suspect is armed and dangerous)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (frisk of third parties during a premises search requires particularized suspicion they are armed)
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (frisk permissible when officer reasonably believes suspect is armed and dangerous)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (review of Fourth Amendment reasonable-suspicion determinations requires giving due weight to inferences of trained officers but is reviewed de novo)
Maye v. United States, 260 A.3d 638 (D.C. 2021) (openly carried tools/knives are not always indicia of wrongdoing; need particularized suspicion)
Germany v. United States, 984 A.2d 1217 (D.C. 2009) (an individual’s association with premises to be searched may factor into, but does not automatically establish, reasonable suspicion to frisk)
Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318 (D.C. 1991) (drugs and weapons often co-occur but totality-of-circumstances analysis is required)
Stanley v. United States, 6 A.3d 270 (D.C. 2010) (similar context where protective search was addressed during execution of drug-search warrant)
Parsons v. United States, 15 A.3d 276 (D.C. 2011) (courts should not rely on conclusory officer assertions; must evaluate underlying facts)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry considers the totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) (legality of a search is not validated by contraband ultimately found)
Hooks v. United States, 208 A.3d 741 (D.C. 2019) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)