Newman v. United States, 258 A.3d 162

Everick Newman was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of unlawful possession of a firearm, related gun offenses (carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition), and possession of PCP and alprazolam.
Officers responded to a disorderly-conduct call in a high-crime area of southeast Washington, D.C.; Newman was seen leaving the building and fled from officers on three separate encounters.
While fleeing each time, Newman reportedly clutched his right waistband with one hand; Officer Moshier testified this conduct suggested he was concealing contraband or a weapon.
Officers detained Newman, conducted a protective pat-down that reached into his waistband/underwear area, and recovered a firearm and ammunition as well as controlled substances.
Newman moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and the frisk exceeded Terry bounds; he also raised a Second Amendment challenge invoking Wrenn. The trial court credited the officers and denied suppression; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop and frisk Newman under Terry	Newman: his flight and gestures had innocent explanations and were ambiguous	Gov: repeated headlong flight while clutching waistband in a high‑crime area supported reasonable suspicion	Affirmed — totality of circumstances (repeated flight + hand to waistband + location) supported the stop and frisk
Whether the pat-down exceeded the scope permitted by Terry	Newman: frisk penetrated layers/groin and exceeded a weapons-only pat-down	Gov: frisk was limited to discovering weapons and was justified by safety concerns; Newman largely failed to preserve scope challenge at trial	Affirmed — frisk was justified and limited to weapons; scope challenge was waived (and court finds the search reasonable)
Whether Wrenn invalidates Newman’s CPWL and ammunition convictions under the Second Amendment	Newman: Wrenn broadly invalidated D.C. restrictions on public carrying, so convictions must be vacated	Gov: Wrenn targeted the District’s “good reason” licensing rule only; CPWL and registration/eligibility requirements remain valid and Newman was disqualified (prior felony, unregistered gun)	Affirmed — Wrenn does not invalidate the statutes underpinning Newman’s convictions; challenge rejected

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop‑and‑frisk standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight in a high‑crime area is a factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
Wrenn v. United States, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (addresses District of Columbia "good reason" carrying restrictions)
Hooks v. United States, 191 A.3d 1141 (D.C. 2018) (explains Wrenn’s limited scope and what statutes remain valid)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (court must view evidence through the experienced law enforcement perspective)
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (frisk for weapons justified to allow officer to pursue investigation safely)
Pridgen v. United States, 134 A.3d 297 (D.C. 2016) (holding that hand-to-waist gestures while running can support reasonable suspicion of being armed)