United States v. Berton Mays
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6552
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police observed a fight in a high-crime "hot spot." Mays was present but began walking away as officers approached.
- Officer Lepsky followed Mays on foot, repeatedly told him to stop and identify himself; Mays refused, using profane language and walking evasively.
- Lepsky observed Mays keep his right hand in his pocket and angle his body away, which the officer interpreted as concealing a weapon.
- When within an arm’s length, Lepsky placed his left hand on Mays’s right shoulder to keep distance as Mays turned; Lepsky then deployed a Taser after seeing a metallic object in Mays’s right hand and the gun fell to the ground.
- Mays was arrested, later questioned by federal agents in jail (waived Miranda) and made an inculpatory statement; he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession but reserved suppression issues for appeal.
- The district court denied motions to suppress (firearm and statement); the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion and there was no Sixth Amendment violation to the custodial statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mays was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment before the officer touched him | Mays contends he submitted when he stopped walking forward, so seizure occurred earlier (no touching required) | Government: seizure occurred when officer physically touched Mays’ shoulder; earlier requests were ignored | Seizure occurred when officer placed his hand on Mays’ shoulder; district court’s credibility finding credited officer’s testimony |
| Whether the seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion | Mays: stop was unlawful because no particularized suspicion of criminality existed at seizure moment | Govt: totality (flight from scene, high-crime area, profane evasive behavior, hand in pocket, angled body, turning toward officer) gave reasonable suspicion officer was armed and dangerous | Court held reasonable suspicion existed at the moment of physical seizure; stop was lawful |
| Whether the firearm should be suppressed as fruit of illegal seizure | Mays: gun recovered after unlawful stop, so evidence should be suppressed | Govt: no Fourth Amendment violation, so gun admissible | Evidence admissible because seizure was lawful; suppression denied |
| Whether Mays’s jailhouse inculpatory statement violated the Sixth Amendment | Mays: statement was tainted by prior illegal seizure or was an involuntary/uncounseled post-indictment interrogation | Govt: Mays waived Miranda knowingly and voluntarily; no showing waiver was invalid | Sixth Amendment claim rejected; waiver found voluntary; statement admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (standards for investigatory stops require specific and articulable facts)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure is a discrete act; defines when Fourth Amendment is implicated)
- United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2011) (two-pronged test re: show of authority and physical force for seizure analysis)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight from police in high-crime area is a factor in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Oglesby, 597 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2010) (officers may rely on training and area characteristics in evaluating suspicion)
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (U.S. 2009) (Miranda waiver typically valid if knowing and voluntary)