248 A.3d 925
D.C.2021Background
- On June 22, 2015, around 9:41 p.m., Brandon Golden was walking alone near Southern Avenue and South Capitol Street when four Gun Recovery Unit officers in two unmarked SUVs pulled up near him; one SUV stopped directly in front of him and another perpendicular to it.
- Officers in tactical vests observed a nondescript bulge on Golden’s right hip and noticed he had a sweatshirt tied around his waist; there was no evidence of a lookout or other suspicious activity.
- Officer Patrick Vaillancourt asked Golden if he had any weapons; Golden said no; the officer then asked to see Golden’s waistband; Golden partially lifted his shirt, then removed and held out the sweatshirt, and ultimately lowered his arms.
- Vaillancourt exited the SUV, approached Golden, and conducted a frisk of the bulge, felt what he believed was a revolver, and the officers arrested Golden; crime-scene photos were taken before the gun was removed.
- The trial court denied Golden’s suppression motion, crediting officer testimony that the encounter was conversational until the frisk and that the bulge, sweatshirt, and perceived evasiveness gave reasonable suspicion to frisk.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed: it held the police had unconstitutionally seized Golden when they demanded he expose his waistband and that the subsequent frisk lacked objectively reasonable suspicion; the convictions were vacated and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Golden's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police conduct amounted to a Fourth Amendment seizure when officers stopped near Golden and asked him to expose his waistband | The show of authority (four officers in two SUVs, vehicle blocking path, accusatory request to show waistband) plus Golden’s submission made the encounter a seizure | No seizure occurred until the frisk; earlier questions were conversational and noncoercive | Seizure occurred when officer asked Golden to expose his waistband and Golden submitted; the totality of circumstances conveyed that compliance was required |
| Whether the frisk was justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion that Golden was armed and dangerous | The bulge, sweatshirt, and supposed evasiveness/nervousness were insufficient and too ambiguous to support a frisk | The nondescript bulge on the right hip, sweatshirt in warm weather, and perceived evasiveness/nervousness gave reasonable suspicion | Frisk was unjustified: the factors were individually and collectively too ambiguous to constitute reasonable articulable suspicion |
| Whether the gun and ammunition should have been suppressed as fruits of an unlawful stop and frisk | Evidence obtained from the unlawful seizure/frisk must be suppressed | Evidence admissible because the stop and frisk were reasonable | Evidence should have been suppressed; convictions vacated on Fourth Amendment grounds |
| Whether to resolve Golden’s remaining constitutional claims (confrontation/cross-exam bias, Brady, Second Amendment challenge to D.C. "good reason" rule) | Trial errors (denial of bias cross-examination; nondisclosure of adverse credibility finding; "good reason" made lawful carry impossible) | Opposed; disputed materiality and applicability; factual disputes (e.g., gun theft) | Court declined to decide these issues as moot or premature given reversal on Fourth Amendment grounds and likely exclusion of the gun evidence on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk reasonable-suspicion standard)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (test for when a police encounter is a seizure: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (submission to a show of authority constitutes seizure)
- United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (contrasting facts where waistband request did not produce a seizure)
- Singleton v. United States, 998 A.2d 295 (D.C. 2010) (bulge plus corroborating conduct can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Gibson, 366 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2018) (waistband request held to be a seizure under totality of circumstances)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (show-of-authority seizure principles)
- Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (invalidating D.C.’s "good reason" requirement for carry licenses)