United States v. Flowers
6 F.4th 651
5th Cir.2021Background
- Otha Ray Flowers was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm after officers discovered a .32-caliber revolver on the driver’s seat of a Cadillac.
- Officer Eric Stanton (DART) observed a silver Cadillac parked in a small convenience-store lot in a Jackson, MS neighborhood patrolled for recent violent crime and burglaries; the occupants remained in the car for about 10–15 seconds.
- Stanton and five to six other patrol cars converged on the vehicle with lights activated and parked so that the Cadillac could not leave; officers approached the car.
- As Stanton approached and the driver lowered the window he smelled marijuana; the passenger then appeared to try to swallow an object, the officers ordered both out, and Stanton saw the gun in plain view. Flowers had an outstanding warrant and was arrested; marijuana was recovered during search incident to arrest.
- Flowers moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful seizure; the district court denied suppression, a jury convicted, and Flowers appealed the suppression ruling (and sought a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct).
- The Fifth Circuit assumed arguendo that the surrounding of the car constituted a seizure but, deferring to district-court credibility findings and viewing facts in the Government’s favor, held the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify investigative detention and affirmed; Judge Elrod concurred in part and dissented in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ surrounding of the Cadillac constituted a Fourth Amendment "seizure" | Flowers: The placement of 5–6 patrol cars with lights activated blocked egress and thus effected a seizure at the outset. | Government: The encounter was consensual until Stanton smelled marijuana; no seizure occurred when officers approached. | Court assumed arguendo a seizure occurred but did not decide the issue; proceeded to analyze reasonableness. |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop/investigative detention | Flowers: Brief observation (10–15 sec) of two men in a parked car, in a small lot at 8:30 p.m., was innocuous and insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. | Government: High-crime neighborhood, car parked facing a brick wall far from store, occupants dawdling, officer experience and context gave rise to reasonable suspicion to investigate. | Held: Viewing facts in Government’s favor and deferring to credibility findings, the combination of high-crime area, parking location, timing, occupants’ behavior, and officer experience supplied reasonable suspicion; detention justified. |
| Whether prosecutorial remarks at closing require a new trial | Flowers: Certain closing remarks were improper and prejudicial. | Government: Remarks were not prejudicial and did not cast serious doubt on verdict. | Held: No prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial; Flowers was not prejudiced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk and reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative detentions)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (police may approach and question individuals in public without seizure if consensual)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (seizure occurs when freedom of movement is restrained under totality of circumstances)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (reasonable-person test for whether a person is free to leave applies to passengers)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in a high-crime area is a relevant contextual factor in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir. 2014) (discusses when approach to a vehicle becomes a seizure and reasonable-suspicion requirements)
- United States v. Beck, 602 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that mere presence in a parked car in a high-crime area, without more, did not supply reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (upholding limited investigative stop and frisk in high-crime context where officer perceived evasive behavior)
- United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (upholding limited frisk/interaction based on officer’s experience and contextual factors)
- United States v. McKinney, 980 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2020) (explains that reasonable-suspicion analysis depends on the particular combination of facts)