Carter v. United States, 341 A.3d 1067

Background

Donte Carter was approached by police officers while talking with a group of ten Black men on a sidewalk in Washington, D.C.'s Ward Four.
The Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit (GRU), in response to recent shootings in the area, conducted a firearm interdiction and confronted the group despite having no particularized suspicion.
An officer asked Carter if he was carrying a firearm; Carter denied it and lifted his shirt twice to show his waistband. The officer then asked Carter to "hike" his pants up.
After Carter complied, another officer noticed a bulge that appeared to be a firearm, frisked Carter, and recovered a gun. Carter was charged and convicted on firearm-related offenses.
Carter’s motion to suppress the gun and his subsequent statement—arguing the seizure was unlawful—was denied by the trial court, which ruled that no seizure occurred until after the observation of the bulge, by which time the officers had reasonable suspicion.
Carter appealed, arguing he was seized (without reasonable suspicion) when asked to raise his pants, and thus, the fruits of that seizure should be suppressed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Carter seized under the Fourth Amendment when asked to raise his pants?	Carter claims seizure occurred when the officer asked him to raise his pants, before reasonable suspicion existed.	Government claims the seizure occurred after that question, when reasonable suspicion arose from the visible bulge.	The court held Carter was seized when asked to raise his pants, before reasonable suspicion existed.
Should the firearm and statement be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful seizure?	Carter argues all evidence following the unconstitutional seizure must be suppressed.	Government argues that, since no seizure occurred until reasonable suspicion was present, suppression is unwarranted.	The court held that the evidence should have been suppressed, vacated Carter's convictions, and remanded.
Does the race of the defendant properly factor into the Fourth Amendment seizure analysis?	Carter (and the appellate court) argue that an objective, reasonable Black person in Carter's position would feel compelled to comply.	Government did not contest the use of race but relied on established precedents that did not account for it.	The court, following Dozier, held that race is an appropriate factor in the objective reasonableness analysis.
Is this case controlled by prior case law (Golden, Brown, Kelly)?	Carter analogizes to Golden (where a seizure was found under similar facts).	Government analogizes to Brown and Kelly (where no seizure was found, despite accusatory questioning).	The court found similarities to both but distinguished Carter's case, ultimately siding with Golden due to the heightened coercion experienced by a reasonable Black person in these circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes the standard for seizure and reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (objective test for when a seizure occurs)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (clarifies person is not seized by mere questioning)
Jones v. United States, 154 A.3d 591 (D.C. 2017) (articulates the test for whether a person would feel free to leave)
Brown v. United States, 983 A.2d 1023 (D.C. 2009) (encounter in a group; not seized under similar facts)
Kelly v. United States, 580 A.2d 1282 (D.C. 1990) (accusatory questioning not sufficient for seizure)