Ramsey v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 496
D.C.2013Background
- On Nov. 28, 2010, MPD Officer Lally followed Ernest Ramsey into a dead-end alley after seeing him standing with his zipper down and hands near his crotch; the alley was secluded, dimly lit, and known for prior petty disorder.
- Lally asked Ramsey what he was doing; Ramsey said he was about to use the bathroom; the officer did not see urine or exposed genitalia and agreed Ramsey was not actually urinating when observed.
- The two walked out of the alley to the side of a store; Lally asked for identification and had the dispatcher run a WALES warrant check using Ramsey’s name and DOB.
- The dispatcher (incorrectly) reported an outstanding bench warrant; Lally handcuffed Ramsey, asked if he had anything on him, Ramsey said the officer could check, the officer patted him down, felt a gun, removed it, and then arrested him.
- The trial court credited Lally’s testimony (including that Ramsey consented) and denied suppression; Ramsey appealed contending the detention for the warrant check was an unlawful seizure because the officer’s initial suspicion of public urination had already been dispelled.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals held the brief detention to run the WALES check was a seizure once reasonable suspicion was dispelled and that the gun found as a result of that seizure must be suppressed; convictions reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramsey was seized before the warrant check and, if so, whether the seizure was lawful | Ramsey: any reasonable suspicion of disorderly conduct was dispelled once officer observed no urine and no bystanders, so detaining Ramsey for a WALES check was an unlawful seizure that tainted consent and the gun | Government: officer had reasonable articulable suspicion from Ramsey’s posture in the alley to stop him and lawfully run identification and a warrant check; the detention was brief and reasonable | Court: encounter became a seizure when officer ran the WALES check; by then suspicion of disorderly conduct was dispelled so no reasonable suspicion/probable cause justified the detention; seizure unlawful and fruit (gun) suppressed |
| Whether consent to search cured the illegality | Ramsey: consent was the product of the unlawful detention and thus tainted | Government: trial court found consent voluntary and contemporaneous; lawful to run warrant check during a Terry stop | Court: consent was given contemporaneously with the unlawful detention (no break in causal chain) and therefore tainted; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008 (D.C. 1991) (standard of appellate review on suppression rulings)
- Jackson v. United States, 805 A.2d 979 (D.C. 2002) (distinguishing consensual encounters from seizures; test for seizure)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (officer may briefly detain on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (principles on investigatory stops)
- Scott v. United States, 878 A.2d 486 (D.C. 2005) (public urination as potential disorderly conduct in certain settings)
- United States v. Williams, 754 F.2d 1001 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (public urination in a partially occupied building may justify disorderly conduct finding)
- Ford v. United States, 376 A.2d 439 (D.C. 1977) (permissibility of running a WALES check during a valid investigatory stop)
- United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (investigatory stops must end once suspicion is dispelled)