United States v. Ezekiel Gardner
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9066
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 13, 2011, Farmville police received a tip from a reliable confidential informant that Gardner (a convicted felon) was in a white Lincoln Town Car and possessed a firearm.
- Officers located the car at the identified house, verified Gardner as the vehicle owner, followed him when he drove off, and initiated a traffic stop.
- During the stop an officer observed Gardner make a furtive movement; after questioning, Gardner admitted there was a gun in the car and said he was a felon.
- Officers searched the passenger compartment and recovered a handgun under the driver’s seat; Gardner was arrested, Mirandized at the station, and made additional statements.
- Gardner was convicted at trial of possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924). The district court denied motions to suppress and for a new trial, but sentenced Gardner as an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA based on three North Carolina common‑law robbery convictions.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and denial of suppression/new trial, but vacated the ACCA enhancement because North Carolina common‑law robbery does not categorically qualify as a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gardner) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop/search | Informant unreliable; stop lacked reasonable suspicion; post‑stop questioning required Miranda | Tip came from a known reliable informant; officers corroborated details; questioning was investigative (not custodial) | Stop and search were lawful; statements admissible (affirmed) |
| Whether on‑scene questioning became custodial (Miranda) | Detention at rear of car converted stop into de facto arrest requiring Miranda | Questions were limited to confirming officer suspicions; not a stationhouse interrogation | Interaction was non‑custodial; Miranda not required at scene (affirmed) |
| Probable cause to search car | Admission alone insufficient; search unlawful | Admission + informant tip + furtive movement gave probable cause; protective search also justified (Long) | Probable cause and protective search valid; weapon admissible (affirmed) |
| ACCA armed‑career‑criminal enhancement | NC common‑law robbery does not necessarily involve the ACCA’s "violent force" (force capable of causing pain/injury) | NC robbery requires "violence or fear," thus categorically involves force under ACCA | NC common‑law robbery can be committed with minimal force; does not categorically match ACCA force clause; ACCA enhancement vacated (sentencing remanded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes standard for investigative stops)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (tip corroboration can support reasonable suspicion)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (distinguishing custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 ("physical force" means violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (categorical vs. modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Singh, 363 F.3d 347 (known informant tip may suffice for reasonable suspicion)