Johnson v. United States, 17-CF-839

Police conducted a traffic stop of a BMW in a high-crime area; appellant Jermal Johnson was a front-seat passenger.
After the driver consented to a vehicle search, Officer Brathwaite asked appellant to exit and immediately performed a pat-down without articulable suspicion; the trial court found the frisk unlawful.
Officer Brathwaite felt metal on appellant’s right hip and asked what it was; appellant said "That’s my thing," then fled on foot.
During a short foot pursuit an officer heard/observed a metal object fall; Officer Jackson recovered a loaded handgun and radioed its location; appellant was thereafter arrested inside a house after running through a screen door.
At suppression the trial court (1) ruled the pat-down unlawful, (2) found appellant had discarded the gun and alternatively lacked standing, and (3) denied suppression of the gun as attenuated; appellant was convicted and appealed the firearm convictions.
The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the firearm-related convictions, holding the unlawful frisk’s taint was not attenuated by the near-immediate flight and recovery of the gun.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of pat-down	Pat-down lacked consent and reasonable, articulable suspicion; seizure was unlawful	Officer relied on occupants' nervousness, high-crime area, and implied consent to frisk for officer safety	Court and trial judge agreed pat-down was unlawful (no reasonable suspicion)
Whether flight/abandonment attenuated taint so gun admissible	Flight was immediate reaction to unlawful frisk; temporal proximity and lack of intervening circumstances require suppression	Flight and voluntary abandonment purge the taint; some precedents allow attenuation when suspect commits a new crime or poses public danger	Court held flight did not attenuate the taint: close temporal proximity, no adequate intervening circumstance, suppression required
Standing / voluntary abandonment	Gun is fruit of unlawful seizure so appellant has standing; discard was involuntary because caused by illegal frisk	Trial court alternatively found appellant disavowed possessory interest or abandoned the gun, so no standing	Court rejected abandonment/standing arguments: appellant had standing and discard was involuntary (result of illegal pat-down)

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (announces three-factor attenuation test: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and purpose/flagrancy)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (U.S. 2016) (applies Brown attenuation factors and discusses when taint may be purged)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes frisk standard—requires reasonable, articulable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous)
Henson v. United States, 55 A.3d 859 (D.C. 2012) (discusses flight, standing, and whether flight can justify denial of suppression)
United States v. Brodie, 742 F.3d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (analyzed similar facts and applied Brown attenuation factors)
Gordon v. United States, 120 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015) (considers purpose/flagrancy factor where seizure aimed to achieve a particular investigatory result)
Green v. United States, 231 A.3d 398 (D.C. 2020) (recognizes temporal proximity favors suppression when discovery is nearly immediate)