19 A.3d 304
D.C.2011Background
- J.F., 16, was stopped by two plainclothes MPD officers in an unmarked car in a neighborhood known for drugs and violence.
- Officers asked J.F. if he heard gunshots; after he responded no, they ordered him to remove his hands from his pockets.
- Officers conducted a brief questions-and-consent interrogation; J.F. consented to a search and plastic bags with cocaine were found.
- J.F. was arrested; the encounter reportedly lasted about three minutes; Mr. Hughes observed the events and was detained briefly.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, crediting Officer Starliper and finding the encounter non-seizure and consensual.
- On appeal, the court reversed, holding that J.F. was seized and that consent could not purge the taint of the unlawful seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Fourth Amendment seizure before consent? | J.F. argues seizure occurred due to order to remove hands and questioning. | State contends it was a pre-seizure encounter and not an unlawful seizure. | Yes, seizure occurred prior to consent. |
| Was consent to search valid given the seizure? | Consent tainted by illegality; no break in causal chain. | Consent baring taint due to voluntary, post-seizure conduct. | Consent was tainted; search invalid. |
| Does suppression apply given the tainted seizure and search? | Illegality requires suppression of evidence obtained as a consequence. | If taint is purged by break in causal chain, search could be admissible. | Evidence suppressed; reversal of conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (consent ineffective when tainted by illegal seizure)
- United States v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consent and questions may occur without seizure; totality of circumstances governs)
- In re J.M., 619 A.2d 497 (D.C.1992) (crucial test: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (encounter is seizure only if authority shown or coercive actions)
- Barnes, 496 A.2d 1040 (D.C.1985) (pre-seizure encounter analysis; removal of hands from pocket can be consensual)
- Reyes v. United States, 758 A.2d 35 (D.C.2000) (show of authority communicated not free to ignore stopped police)
- Gomez v. United States, 597 A.2d 884 (D.C.1991) (seizure identified when police direct actions convey authority)
- Duhart v. United States, 589 A.2d 895 (D.C.1991) (consent obtained after tainted seizure insufficient to purge taint)
- Jones v. United States, 391 A.2d 1188 (D.C.1978) (show of authority can constitute seizure)
- Crowder v. United States, 379 A.2d 1183 (D.C.1977) (demand for identification alongside show of authority)
- Hawkins v. United States, 663 A.2d 1221 (D.C.1995) (initial encounter can become seizure under totality of circumstances)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (break in causal chain required to purge taint of illegality)
- McGann v. Northeast Illinois R.R. Corp., 8 F.3d 1174 (7th Cir.1993) (consent contemporaneous with illegal seizure ineffective)
- United States v. Fox, 600 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir.2010) (consent requires break in causal chain from illegality)