263 A.3d 128
D.C.2021Background
- Late-night police in marked car observed Crews press his body against his vehicle after seeing the patrol car, which officers found suspicious in an area known for drug/gun activity.
- Officers turned around, followed, entered a fenced area and approached exterior stairs leading to an elevated, covered landing in front of Crews’s apartment.
- Officer Olivo shined a flashlight, said “can I talk to you real quick,” moved up the stairs, observed Crews fumble with his apartment key and, when about 3–4 stairs away, saw an L-shaped weighted object in Crews’s front hoodie pocket.
- Olivo bear‑hugged Crews to prevent access to the object; officers then frisked him and recovered a handgun.
- Trial court credited officer testimony, ruled Olivo’s entry onto the landing was permissible under Jardines (no posted prohibition), found the frisk justified after Olivo saw the object, and denied Crews’s motion to suppress.
- Jury was instructed on misdemeanor CPWL only, convicted on CPWL and related charges, but the Judgment and Commitment labeled CPWL as a felony; Crews appealed suppression and sought correction of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was a consensual encounter or a seizure before officer saw the object | Crews: the officer’s approach and words were a demand; he was seized before the officer saw the L‑shaped object, so frisk and recovery were fruit of unlawful seizure | Gov: the initial encounter was consensual; even if show of authority occurred Crews did not submit until after officer observed the object | Court vacated suppression ruling and remanded for findings on whether there was a show of authority and, if so, when seizure occurred (did not decide merits) |
| Whether Crews submitted to any show of authority | Crews: he did not voluntarily submit; he was trying to enter his home and did not consent to detention | Gov: Crews’s conduct (pausing, responding) evidences submission | Court instructed trial court to determine whether Crews submitted to any show of authority as part of remand |
| Whether officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop/investigatively detain Crews prior to frisk | Crews: no reasonable suspicion existed before the alleged seizure/physical contact | Gov: officers had grounds to investigate based on behavior and neighborhood context | Court asked trial court to clarify whether, and when, reasonable articulable suspicion justified an investigatory stop before the frisk; remanded for findings |
| Whether the Judgment and Commitment’s felony CPWL entry is erroneous given misdemeanor instruction | Crews: jury was only instructed on misdemeanor CPWL; judgment treats it as felony — error requiring correction | Gov: omission was error but harmless because evidence showed Crews was outside dwelling/land not possessed by him | Court did not decide this issue on appeal (declined to reach pending suppression remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (approach onto home/curtilage implicates privacy; officer conduct may exceed implied license)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (consensual‑encounter test: whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline or terminate the encounter)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passenger in a stopped vehicle is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes submission to show of authority from seizure by physical force or pursuit)
- Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933 (D.C. 2019) (D.C. law on when submission to officer converts encounter into a seizure)
- Golden v. United States, 248 A.3d 925 (D.C. 2021) (compliance with officer requests—e.g., exposing body—can constitute submission for seizure analysis)
- Hooks v. United States, 208 A.3d 741 (D.C. 2019) (surrounding conduct and commands by multiple officers can constitute nonconsensual seizure)