United States v. Andre Williams
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19557
7th Cir.2013Background
- Police responded within minutes to an anonymous 911 report that ~25 people outside a bar were loud and several had "guns out." The bar and lot were a known high-crime location.
- On arrival officers found 8–10 people who were not overtly belligerent or displaying weapons; the group began to disperse and avoided eye contact.
- Officer Jesberger singled out Andre Williams, asked him to step forward, and requested he show his hands; Williams complied initially and removed his hands from his pockets.
- Jesberger then performed a pat-down; Williams moved his hands toward his waist, resisted handcuffing, attempted to flee, and was subdued. A subsequent search disclosed a handgun, ecstasy pills, and cash.
- Williams was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), moved to suppress the firearm, pled guilty while preserving the right to appeal suppression, and was later sentenced. The district court denied suppression; the Seventh Circuit reversed as to the frisk.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial stop (Terry stop) | 911 tip was anonymous and circumstances changed on arrival; no particularized suspicion of Williams | 911 emergency report and high-crime location provided reasonable suspicion to stop the group and Williams | Stop was upheld by majority (close call); concurrence expressed doubt and withheld on that ground |
| Lawfulness of frisk (pat-down) | No individualized, articulable suspicion Williams was armed and dangerous; general nervousness, pocketed hands, and group behavior insufficient | Weapons call, high-crime area, evasive behavior, and Williams' hands near waistband justified frisk | Frisk was unconstitutional—officers lacked reasonable suspicion specific to Williams |
| Exclusionary rule / Herring good-faith exception | Deliberate/unjustified frisk warrants suppression to deter arbitrary searches | Argued suppression not warranted under Herring balancing | Suppression appropriate; frisk was sufficiently deliberate/culpable to require exclusion |
| Sentencing enhancements applied at sentencing | (Alternative) enhancements relied on facts from the challenged search | Government applied enhancements at sentencing | Court vacated conviction on suppression grounds and did not decide enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (deterrence standard for exclusionary rule)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes brief investigatory stops and limited frisks)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (value of corroborated tips)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (anonymous tip of mere gun possession insufficient)
- United States v. Hicks, 531 F.3d 555 (7th Cir.) (emergency 911 tip can support Terry stop)
- United States v. Wooden, 551 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.) (anonymous tip with described basis can justify stop)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (frisk requires individualized suspicion; presence in a place alone insufficient)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (Terry principles and limits on searches)
- United States v. McKoy, 428 F.3d 38 (7th Cir.) (frisk must be analyzed separately from stop)
- United States v. Patton, 705 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.) (distinguishable; supports frisk where suspect’s conduct was more alarming)