United States v. Fonville
127 F. Supp. 3d 790
E.D. Mich.2015Background
- At ~1:00 a.m. on Jan. 24, 2015 deputies Wallace and Morsey responded to a 911 report of ~200 people fighting inside an Elks’ Lodge; the caller said one person possibly wearing a red jacket might have a gun and a callback number was provided.
- Deputies, familiar with the Lodge as a high-crime location, arrived to find people leaving; Wallace saw Fonville wearing a red jacket near parked cars and attempted to speak with him.
- Fonville spoke with slurred speech, smelled of alcohol, and began to walk away; Morsey grabbed him after he stumbled and officers observed Fonville tense, pull his arms in, and attempt to shield his right side by pinning himself to a car.
- Deputies perceived furtive movement toward Fonville’s waistband; they attempted a pat-down, Fonville resisted, was handcuffed, and Wallace recovered a loaded .9mm Sig Sauer from Fonville’s right front pocket.
- LEIN/NCIC checks showed Fonville was a convicted felon on parole and lacked a CPL; Fonville later admitted he fled because he had a pistol and knew he could not possess it.
- Fonville moved to suppress the gun and statements, arguing the stop/search lacked reasonable suspicion and the arrest lacked probable cause; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial contact was a Fourth Amendment seizure | Wallace’s approach immediately seized Fonville | Fonville: contact alone was a seizure triggering Terry protections | Not a seizure: initial approach was a consensual encounter; seizure occurred when Morsey grabbed Fonville after he stumbled |
| Whether anonymous 911 tip could supply reasonable suspicion | 911 tip like J.L. is unreliable and insufficient to justify frisk | 911 call had indicia of reliability (eyewitness to a violent disturbance, callback number, use of 911) and may be considered | 911 tip was sufficiently reliable to be considered under totality of circumstances (distinguished from J.L.) |
| Whether deputies had reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a pat-down for weapons | Tip alone insufficient; frisk was unlawful | Tip plus officers’ observations (intoxication, stumbling, furtive movements, tensing, reaching waistband, trying to hide) gave reasonable suspicion of weapons | Under totality, deputies had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and frisk; handcuffing for safety was reasonable |
| Whether evidence (gun and statements) must be suppressed as fruit of illegal stop/arrest | Suppress gun and post-arrest statements as fruit of unlawful seizure | Evidence admissible because stop and search were lawful and arrest supported by probable cause after gun discovered | Motion to suppress denied; search, seizure, and subsequent statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk reasonable-suspicion framework)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip lacking predictive detail is insufficient for a frisk)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (911 calls carry indicia of reliability because of traceability and emergency system features)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight and evasive behavior are relevant to reasonable suspicion)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (actual submission to show of authority is required for a seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (no seizure without submission to show of authority)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion requires some minimal objective justification)
- United States v. Shank, 543 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing reasonable suspicion standard)
- United States v. Williams, 615 F.3d 657 (6th Cir. 2010) (examining totality of circumstances to determine when an encounter becomes a seizure)