Robinson v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 643
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Four plainclothes MPD Gun Recovery Unit officers in an unmarked car approached Alex Robinson in a high‑crime area at night; Robinson held a half‑full vodka bottle and appeared intoxicated.
- Officer Katz asked Robinson, as a routine question, "do you have a gun?" Robinson did not verbally respond. After the question, Robinson made "back and forth/side to side" hand motions on his chest over his winter coat; he did not reach into pockets or obscure the movements.
- Officer Katz grabbed Robinson’s wrists, another officer bear‑hugged him, they handcuffed him, and conducted a patdown; a small .25 caliber pistol was later found in the outside breast pocket of his coat. Officers left the gun in the pocket.
- At suppression, the hearing court credited the officers’ testimony and denied suppression, finding the gestures (coming after the gun question) supplied reasonable articulable suspicion "if only just barely." The case proceeded to trial and conviction.
- On appeal, Robinson argued the seizure and protective frisk lacked the reasonable, articulable suspicion required by Terry and that the gun and his subsequent statements should be suppressed as fruits of an illegal stop/search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize/detain Robinson and perform protective patdown under Terry | Officers lacked particularized suspicion before contact; Robinson’s post‑question hand motions and silence were ambiguous and could be explained by intoxication, not weapon possession | The question "do you have a gun?" and Robinson’s nonverbal hand movements after the question gave rise to a reasonable suspicion he might be armed | Held: No. The totality of circumstances did not furnish objective particularized suspicion to justify the seizure and frisk under Terry |
| Whether the handgun recovered should be suppressed as evidence from an unconstitutional stop/search | Gun was the direct product of the unlawful seizure and search and thus must be suppressed | Recovery of a gun validates the stop and frisk as reasonable | Held: Gun suppressed — recovery does not retroactively justify an unlawful stop/search |
| Whether Robinson’s post‑seizure statements (at scene and at stationhouse) should be suppressed as fruits of the illegal stop/search and Miranda issues | Statements flowed from the illegal seizure/search and must be suppressed; separate Miranda waiver/invocation issues also raised | Statements admissible because stop/frisk was reasonable under Terry (primary government position) | Held: Statements suppressed as fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation (court did not resolve the separate Miranda claim) |
| Whether alternative government theories (search‑incident‑to‑arrest for assault on officer) can justify the search | Such theories were not argued below; government forfeited them | Government later argued search could be justified as incident to an arrest for assault on officer | Held: Government forfeited new search‑incident theory raised on appeal; court declines to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop and limited frisk doctrine; reasonable, articulable suspicion standard)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (Fourth Amendment limits on seizures and searches; need for constitutionally adequate grounds)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (limits on expanding suspicion from place to all persons present)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (presence in high‑crime area and unprovoked flight as contextual considerations in Terry analysis)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine for suppressing evidence and statements obtained from unlawful police conduct)
- Germany v. United States, 984 A.2d 1217 (D.C. 2009) (standard of review for suppression rulings; articulation of reasonable suspicion requirement)
- Jackson v. United States, 56 A.3d 1206 (D.C. 2012) (requirement to link particular gestures/behavior to a likelihood of being armed)
- Powell v. United States, 649 A.2d 1082 (D.C. 1994) (recovery of contraband does not retroactively justify unconstitutional stop/search)
- Oliver v. United States, 656 A.2d 1159 (D.C. 1995) (suppression of physical and testimonial evidence obtained by unlawful means)