United States v. Benjie Earl Wright
712 F. App'x 868
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wright was stopped in the Yellow Meat Market after officers received a victim’s description of an armed robber (race, approximate age, lowboy haircut, tattoos, white shirt, black cargo shorts) and officers observed a person matching many descriptive features.
- Officer Arriola asked for ID; Wright said he worked at the market but produced no identification; officers did not recognize him as an employee.
- Officers conducted a brief investigatory stop and a Terry pat‑down, slightly lifting Wright’s long shirt to view the waistband and patting the outside of his cargo shorts.
- Evidence recovered led to Wright’s prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition, and Wright filed a motion to suppress the evidence from the stop.
- At sentencing the government asserted Wright qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on prior convictions including a 2000 Florida robbery conviction.
- The district court denied the suppression motion and applied the ACCA; Wright appealed both the suppression denial and the ACCA classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and pat‑down Wright | Wright argued officers lacked particularized suspicion and exceeded Terry limits by lifting his shirt | Govt argued officers had articulable facts matching the witness description and could conduct a protective pat‑down to check for weapons | Court held officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and to perform a limited Terry frisk; lifting the shirt to view the waistband and patting the shorts was within scope |
| Whether Wright’s 2000 Florida robbery conviction qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause | Wright disputed that his Florida robbery conviction was a qualifying violent felony | Govt argued post‑Robinson Florida armed robbery convictions categorically satisfy the ACCA elements clause based on Eleventh Circuit precedent | Court held Wright’s Florida robbery conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA, making him subject to the mandatory minimum sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (protective pat‑down doctrine)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality of circumstances and reasonable suspicion)
- Hensley v. United States, 469 U.S. 221 (stops based on flyers/bulletins)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (plain‑feel doctrine)
- Robinson v. State, 692 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1997) (holding mere snatching is not robbery absent greater force)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida attempted robbery as crime of violence under elements clause)
- United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2016) (post‑Robinson Florida armed robbery qualifies under ACCA elements clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (residual clause of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague)