United States v. Dominic Jeter
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13893
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dominic Jeter was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and moved to suppress the gun.
- Toledo Police Department conducted a large ‘bum rush’ saturation in a high-crime shopping-center lot to address loitering and suspected crime.
- Jeter, initially not part of the loitering group, arrived on a bicycle, shopped, then attempted to leave as officers blocked his path.
- Jeter fled on foot during the approach; officers pursued, caught him, and recovered a .22 caliber handgun from his shorts.
- The district court denied the suppression motion; Jeter pled guilty reserving the right to appeal the denial.
- At sentencing, the district court varied upward by eight months to 45 months based on § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial encounter constituted a seizure | Jeter argues the first contact was an unlawful seizure tainting later events. | Jeter contends there was no valid seizure at first encounter; any later seizure was tainted. | No seizure at first encounter; later seizure based on reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether the flight provoked by police created reasonable suspicion | Jeter asserts the stop was tainted by provoked flight due to the officers’ tactics. | Jeter’s flight was not provoked; no fraud or intent to provoke; Wardlow applicable. | Flight was not provoked; stop justified by reasonable suspicion after flight. |
| Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop after Jeter fled | Jeter contends there was no reasonable suspicion to detain him after flight. | The combination of flight and pocket-grab in a high-crime area supported a Terry stop under Wardlow. | There was reasonable suspicion; Terry stop valid and gun admissible. |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable | Jeter challenges procedural and substantive reasonableness, arguing improper weighting of factors. | District court properly considered § 3553(a) factors; reasons for variance supported; deterrence appropriate. | Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wardlow, 518 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (unprovoked flight can support reasonable suspicion; Wardlow guides stops)
- Hodari D. v. United States, 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure requires submission to authority or physical restraint)
- United States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561 (10th Cir. 1991) (momentary submission to show of authority can affect seizure question)
- United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2000) (brief compliance and questions may not constitute seizure)
- Franklin v. State (United States v. Franklin), 323 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2003) (provoked flight considerations in loitering investigations)
- United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2009) (overlapping procedural and substantive reasonableness review; abuse of discretion)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes standard for procedural/substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2006) (sentence need not recite every § 3553(a) factor to be reasonable)
- United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (requires specific reasons for sentence variance)
- Vonner v. United States, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain error review when defendant fails to object to sentencing)