513 F. App'x 577
6th Cir.2013Background
- At approximately 12:45 AM on August 12, 2010, police stopped a tan Blazer matching a crime vehicle description after a brawl involving a handgun; Atkins was the sole male passenger and was wearing a white shirt and black pants with blood on his shirt.
- A handgun was found in the Blazer’s center console during a protective frisk, and Atkins was arrested; he later fled custody during hospital treatment.
- Police later observed Atkins five months later (Jan 20, 2011) near a targeted residence; he fled again and was apprehended with a duffle bag containing two handguns, an assault rifle, body armor, and possible explosives.
- Atkins was charged with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of felon in possession of body armor; he moved to suppress the Blazer handgun and to dismiss the charges, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop.
- The district court denied the suppression motion; Atkins was convicted on all counts; at sentencing he tendered a handwritten memorandum which the court did not consider; consecutive 120-month sentences for firearm counts and a concurrent 36-month sentence for body armor were imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop had reasonable suspicion under Terry. | Atkins contends the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. | The government argues totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion. | Yes; the stop had reasonable suspicion; affirmed. |
| Whether Atkins's right to allocute was violated by not considering the handwritten memo. | Memo should have been considered to aid allocution. | Memo was untimely/rearguing guilt; court discretionary. | No error; no restriction on allocution; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of the circumstances governs reasonable-suspicion review)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (framework for brief investigatory stops; reasonable suspicion standard)
- United States v. Vite–Espinoza, 342 F.3d 462 (2003) (reasonableness under totality of circumstances)
- Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (2006) (requires more than a mere hunch for stopping; evaluates totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Carter, 355 F.3d 920 (2004) (plain-error standard for allocution review)