266 A.3d 244
D.C.2022Background
- On Oct. 26, 2016, 19‑year‑old Landon Mayo was standing with others in a Kenilworth alley when Metropolitan Police Gun Recovery Unit (GRU) officers pulled in and approached the group.
- Three GRU officers exited an unmarked car, singled out Mayo, asked “Do you have any guns?”, and Mayo ran; Sgt. Jose Jaquez dove and made physical contact, tripping Mayo though Mayo initially escaped and was stopped shortly thereafter by officers from a second car.
- During and after the chase officers recovered a handgun and drugs from the area and seized drugs and cash from Mayo’s person; Mayo was convicted at trial after the court denied suppression on reconsideration.
- On appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals held (1) Jaquez’s dive constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure under Torres v. Madrid, (2) the seizure lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and thus was unlawful, and (3) the gun and drugs were fruits of that unlawful seizure and must be suppressed. Convictions were vacated.
- The court emphasized that Wardlow flight analysis must account for provocation and context (including police conduct and the quality of “high‑crime area” evidence); conclusory high‑crime testimony was given little weight here.
- Judge McLeese dissented, agreeing the dive was a seizure but arguing the totality of the circumstances (waistband movement, flight, neighborhood gun recoveries) supplied reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mayo) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jaquez’s dive constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Dive/tackle was a physical application of force causing Mayo to trip and thus was a seizure | No seizure because the attempt was unsuccessful (Mayo broke free) | Seizure: yes — Torres controls; any intentional application of force to restrain is a seizure even if unsuccessful |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize Mayo (Terry) | Officers lacked particularized facts: movements were ambiguous (back to officers), flight was provoked by police, and high‑crime testimony was vague | Flight, suspected waistband movement, and GRU’s prior gun recoveries in area provided reasonable suspicion | No reasonable suspicion: movements were too ambiguous, flight was provoked by coercive police approach, and high‑crime testimony was insufficiently particularized |
| Whether evidence recovered after the seizure must be suppressed (but‑for/attenuation) | The discarded and recovered items were the direct fruit of the illegal seizure; causal chain is clear and attenuation fails | No causal link / attenuation: either no but‑for causation or intervening events broke the causal chain | Suppress: court finds prima facie but‑for causation and that attenuation factors (temporal proximity, no intervening circumstances, investigatory purpose) favor suppression |
| Effect of Torres and Henson on analysis | Torres requires treating attempted forcible restraint as a seizure; Henson (which required control or submission) is no longer good law | Government urged reliance on Henson; after Torres, Henson is effectively overruled | Torres governs; prior Henson rule rejecting unsuccessful‑force seizures is displaced |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021) (application of physical force with intent to restrain is a Fourth Amendment seizure even if the suspect is not subdued)
- Hodari D. v. California, 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (historical discussion that application of force may constitute an arrest/seizure)
- Henson v. United States, 55 A.3d 859 (D.C. 2012) (prior D.C. rule holding unsuccessful physical attempts to detain were not seizures; effectively displaced by Torres)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight in a high‑crime area can be a relevant factor in reasonable‑suspicion analysis; context matters)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishing the reasonable, articulable suspicion standard for brief investigatory stops)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (framework for "fruit of the poisonous tree" and attenuation analysis)
- United States v. Brodie, 742 F.3d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (sequence of illegal seizure, flight, and discarding of contraband establishes prima facie causation)
- Golden v. United States, 248 A.3d 925 (D.C. 2021) (police questioning that singles out and implicitly accuses a person can be coercive and relevant to provocation/flight analysis)