United States v. Fields, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8834

Fields was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition after Boston officers found a gun during a pat-frisk on Sept. 12, 2012.
Initial encounter: Officer Fisher approached Fields conversationally after Fields separated from a group; Fields became agitated and Fisher radioed for backup. Four officers arrived within about a minute.
No commands, weapon displays, or physical contact occurred before the knife was revealed; officers positioned near a cruiser but, per testimony, did not block Fields’ path.
Officers began a frisk only after Fields lifted his shirt and a knife was seen; Fields resisted and officers subdued him, recovered the firearm and ammunition.
Fields moved to suppress the evidence, arguing he was seized when backup arrived (Terry stop requiring reasonable suspicion). District Court denied suppression and later sentenced Fields using a Guidelines base offense level (BOL) increased under the career-offender-related enhancement; Fields preserved suppression appeal and appealed sentence.
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed denial of suppression (no show of authority/seizure when backup arrived) but vacated and remanded for resentencing because one prior conviction (resisting arrest) could not support the career-offender enhancement; the court held the July 2010 ADW conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the force clause, supporting a lesser enhancement on remand.

Issue	Fields' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Fields was "seized" when four backup officers arrived (triggering Terry protections)	Arrival/formation of five officers + call for backup objectively conveyed he was not free to leave, so seizure occurred and the later frisk was unlawful	No seizure: encounter remained consensual until officers physically subdued Fields after the knife appeared; backup arrival without commands, weapon display, or blocking did not amount to a show of authority	Affirmed District Court: no show of authority when backup arrived; no unlawful seizure prior to the knife being revealed
Whether career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (BOL 24) was properly applied based on Fields' prior convictions	Prior convictions did not qualify as crimes of violence so BOL should be 14	Conceded one prior (resisting arrest) cannot support §2K2.1(a)(2); argues ADW conviction qualifies so §2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (BOL 20) applies	Vacated and remanded for resentencing; court held July 2010 ADW conviction qualifies under the force clause, so remand for application of §2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (BOL 20) rather than §2K2.1(a)(2)

Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (show of authority/seizure test)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (submission required for show of authority to effect seizure)
Drayton v. Minnesota, 536 U.S. 194 (consensual encounters; no seizure absent coercion)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (no seizure where officer did not block course of travel)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (definition of "physical force" in force clause)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (holding voiding residual clause; discussed for career-offender residual clause context)
United States v. Whindleton, 797 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2015) (Massachusetts ADW qualifies under force clause)
United States v. Smith, 423 F.3d 25 (officer positioning and whether defendant was surrounded)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (categorical/modified categorical approach)