918 F.3d 793
10th Cir.2019Background
- Officers Rowland and Davis responded to a 911 call reporting a man in red selling drugs at a parking lot near the Wilhelmina Gill Center; they arrived in two marked police cars with roof lights flashing.
- Officers parked behind Gaines’s car; Officer Rowland gestured for Gaines to exit; officers told Gaines they were there because of a report he was selling PCP, smelled PCP, and saw an open container.
- Gaines complied by exiting, answering questions, and looking for ID; when officers said they would detain him he grabbed a pouch and fled; officers were soon able to capture him and searched the vehicle and pouch, finding drugs, cash, paraphernalia, and a handgun.
- Police discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for Gaines only after the search; the district court denied Gaines’s motion to suppress and he appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit majority held the encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure, rejected the government’s attenuation arguments (warrant and later probable cause), vacated the denial of suppression, and remanded for the district court to decide reasonable suspicion; the chief judge dissented, arguing reasonable suspicion and probable cause supported the stop and search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gaines) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a seizure | Officers’ approach, flashing lights, gesture to exit, accusatory questioning converted encounter into a seizure | Encounter was consensual; Gaines was not seized because he fled and thus did not submit to authority | Seizure: Yes. Viewing objective circumstances as a whole, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave and Gaines yielded by exiting and answering questions. |
| Attenuation — outstanding arrest warrant | Warrant discovered after search cannot attenuate taint of an earlier unlawful seizure | Warrant discovery after the search breaks causal chain and justifies admission | No attenuation: warrant was discovered only after the search; execution of the warrant would not necessarily authorize the vehicle search and two attenuation factors (temporal proximity and intervening circumstances) favor suppression. |
| Attenuation — later probable cause (smell of PCP/open container) | Probable cause developed as a direct result of the unlawful seizure and thus cannot purge the taint | Probable cause developed during the encounter and therefore attenuates the illegal stop | No attenuation: probable cause flowed directly from the seizure and thus does not break the causal chain. |
| Reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop | Anonymous 911 tip lacked sufficient indicia to justify a seizure; remand for factfinding | Tip was sufficiently reliable (911, contemporaneous, specifics), bolstered by officers’ local knowledge of PCP activity — reasonable suspicion existed | Remanded to district court to assess reasonable suspicion in the first instance (fact-intensive; issue close). |
| Abandonment of the pouch | Evidence from pouch should be suppressed as fruit of illegal seizure | Pouch was abandoned when thrown on roof, so recovery is lawful | Not decided on appeal — record inadequate; remand permits district court to consider abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure requires submission to show of authority)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (objective test: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (seizure intent measured by what is conveyed to the suspect)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (state stop/traffic laws inform whether a person feels free to leave)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose/flagrancy of misconduct)
- Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016) (attenuation doctrine discussion)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (but-for causal chain for fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (911 call, contemporaneousness, and specificity can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561 (10th Cir. 1991) (minimal submission to authority can establish seizure)
- United States v. Camacho, 661 F.3d 718 (1st Cir. 2011) (responding to officer's questions can indicate submission to authority)