496 F. App'x 390
5th Cir.2012Background
- Roberson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a DART stop and frisk yielded a pistol, ammo, and incriminating statements.
- The stop occurred on a DART train when Roberson wore a bandana over his face and a dispatch described two black males with bandanas near a possible robbery.
- DART officer Ibarra conducted a train sweep and detained Roberson on the platform, leading to a Terry frisk that uncovered a firearm.
- Roberson moved to suppress the gun, ammo, and statements as fruits of an unlawful stop/search, but the district court denied the motion.
- In a separate proceeding, the district court revoked Roberson’s supervised release based on firearm-related and other violations; the revocation was upheld.
- Roberson appeals both the firearm conviction and the supervised-release revocation, which we affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk? | Roberson argues the stop/frisk violated the Fourth Amendment because the tip was anonymous/unreliable. | Roberson's last name is used as shorthand; the state asserts dispatch provided sufficient basis for arrival and reasonable suspicion. | Yes; there was reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk. |
| Was the supervised-release revocation proper? | Roberson argues the revocation was improper or influenced by the gun conviction. | Government contends revocation proved by independent violations, not twin reliance on the firearm conviction. | Yes; the revocation was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court 2002) (totality of the circumstances governs reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (Supreme Court 1985) (reasonable suspicion may justify stop-and-frisk)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1968) (stop and frisk permitted when armed and dangerous)
- United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2004) (scope of stop must be related to justification)
- United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2008) (reasonable-suspicion factors include behaviors and context)
- Montez, 952 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1992) (exclusionary rule not applied to revocation without harassment)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (Supreme Court 1996) (reasonable-suspicion review is deferential to facts)
- United States v. Macias, 658 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion determination evaluated de novo on mixed questions)
- United States v. Tompkins, 130 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 1997) (five-factor approach to evaluating searches and seizures)
- United States v. Henry, 372 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2004) (attire can be a factor, not dispositive, in reasonable-suspicion analysis)