United States v. Camacho
661 F.3d 718
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Camacho was charged with unlawful firearm possession by a felon and with possessing an obliterated serial number on a firearm.
- Camacho moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition as fruits of an unlawful search and seizure; the district court denied the motion.
- The January 11, 2008 encounter arose from 911 calls about a street fight in New Bedford; officers identified Camacho and Osario-Meléndez as involved.
- Officers blocked Camacho’s path, questioned him, and Camacho kept his hands in his pockets; a gun was later seized from Camacho.
- Camacho pled guilty conditionally, reserving the suppression ruling for appeal; the district court’s suppression ruling was challenged on appeal.
- The First Circuit agreed the gun should have been suppressed, reversing on Fourth Amendment grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Camacho seized when questioned? | Camacho was unlawfully seized. | The seizure was permissible under Terry. | Seizure occurred; the stop was unconstitutional. |
| Was the initial stop reasonable under Terry? | No reasonable suspicion existed. | The stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. | Not supported; lacks particularized, objective basis. |
| Was the frisk of Camacho a valid search? | Frisk cannot justify gun discovery given unlawful stop. | Frisk could be valid if justified by safety concerns. | Frisk tainted; suppression required as fruit of the illegal stop. |
| Is the gun admissible under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine? | Intervening crimes purged taint, allowing admissibility. | Intervening acts purged taint; search valid. | Gun not admissible; taint not purged; suppression required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in high crime area not enough for suspicion; requires totality of circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits limited frisk to discover weapons when armed and dangerous)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable suspicion must be particularized and objective)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to arrest doctrine)
- United States v. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and attenuation considerations)