United States v. Brown
5:19-cr-40081
D. Kan.Mar 7, 2022Background
- Early morning May 10, 2019: a 911 caller reported shots fired from a dark sedan and provided descriptions of the car and its two occupants (one Black male in a black hoodie; one Asian male in a red shirt) after interacting with them at Paradise Saloon.
- Caller followed the car to a gas station; deputies reviewed Paradise Saloon security video and identified a dark vehicle and two men matching the caller's descriptions (identified as Antonio Brown and Bounsouay Khanya).
- Deputies found shell casings near the location where the caller said she heard shots. Lawrence PD located a dark Chevrolet Malibu matching the description with Brown and Khanya inside.
- Officers approached the parked car; while looking through the windows with a flashlight, an officer observed a pistol handle between the passenger seat and the door and then arrested both men; pat-downs revealed cash and small bags of controlled substances on Khanya.
- While retrieving the firearm, officers smelled marijuana upon opening the car door and then found large amounts of marijuana, methamphetamine, bundles of money in a backpack on the driver-side floor, and additional items in the trunk.
- Khanya moved to suppress all evidence from the stop and search, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop, unlawful plain-view observation/seizure of the gun, and that the subsequent search of the car required a warrant; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legality of stop / investigatory detention | Officers had reasonable suspicion based on an eyewitness 911 report corroborated by video and proximity to the scene | No reasonable suspicion to stop/question Brown and Khanya | Stop was lawful: totality (911 eyewitness, video, matching car nearby) established reasonable suspicion |
| 2. Observation and seizure of firearm (plain view) | Officers lawfully viewed and seized the gun seen from a lawful vantage; plain-view and probable cause justified seizure | Viewing interior/seizing gun without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Seizure lawful under plain-view doctrine; finding firearm provided probable cause to seize without warrant |
| 3. Warrantless search of vehicle for drugs | Smell of marijuana when accessing vehicle supplied probable cause to search the car and containers | The further search (backpacks, trunk) required a warrant and was unlawful | Smell created probable cause; vehicle search (including backpacks/trunk) was permissible under automobile exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view doctrine permits warrantless seizure when officers are lawfully present and incriminating nature is immediately apparent)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (911 eyewitness reports may supply reasonable suspicion when timely and corroborated)
- Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (2020) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry under the Fourth Amendment; totality of circumstances standard)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (plain-view seizures involve no invasion of privacy when officers are lawfully present)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (1996) (automobile exception: probable cause allows warrantless vehicle searches)
- United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006) (application of plain-view and automobile-search rules in the Tenth Circuit)
- United States v. Rhiper, 315 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2003) (odor of marijuana can establish probable cause to search vehicle)
- United States v. Mercado, 307 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2002) (warrantless vehicle searches permissible under probable cause even when vehicle is stationary)