979 F.3d 626
8th Cir.2020Background:
- A 911 caller reported an armed robbery in Kansas City by two Black males wearing brown hoodies and dark pants; one had a handgun. Dispatch broadcast the description and updated location minutes later.
- Officers Griddine and Hill, in an unmarked car canvassing nearby, turned onto E. 10th St. a few minutes after the report and saw two Black males walking west a few blocks from the scene; one wore a tan/brown hoodie and the other wore dark clothing.
- Officer Griddine stopped the two men, told them he was investigating a robbery, and frisked them; he found no weapon on the hoodie-wearing companion but recovered a gun from Antonio Slater’s right pocket.
- Slater struggled during the encounter, was handcuffed, identified as a convicted felon, and indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful Terry stop/frisk.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying suppression, the district court adopted the recommendation, Slater was convicted after a bench trial, and he appealed only the legal question whether the stop and frisk were supported by reasonable suspicion. The officers later learned the two stopped men were not the assailants.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Slater) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion — officers relied chiefly on proximity and a generic description (race, hoodies) in a predominantly Black area | Totality of circumstances (timing, location, two men matching description, walking away from scene) gave reasonable suspicion to stop | Court affirmed: stop reasonable under Terry |
| Whether the subsequent frisk was justified | Frisk not justified absent officer-suspected danger specific to Slater | Dispatch reported one assailant armed; companion frisked and no weapon found; risk not dispelled — frisk for weapons permissible | Court affirmed: frisk reasonable to check for weapons |
| Whether generic description and clothing discrepancies defeat reasonable suspicion | Generic race-based description and prevalence of similarly dressed persons in the area made the match insufficient | One person wore tan/brown outerwear, both matched other descriptors (two males, dark clothing), close temporal/geographical proximity — discrepancies do not negate suspicion | Court affirmed: imperfect or partly matching descriptions can still support reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes standards for stops and limited pat-downs under reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Quinn, 812 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2016) (partial clothing match, proximity, and direction of travel supported reasonable-suspicion stop)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sanchez, 955 F.3d 669 (8th Cir. 2020) (must consider officer’s inferences and view facts collectively)
- United States v. Arthur, 764 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2014) (circumstances other than suspicious behavior can supply reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Houston, 920 F.3d 1168 (8th Cir. 2019) (articulates reasonable-suspicion standard for Terry stops)