411 F. App'x 853
6th Cir.2011Background
- Officers in a high-crime Columbus area observed a blue Buick linked to Dingess and later identified him as the driver from mug shot and arrest records.
- Dingess was staying with his girlfriend at the duplex where the Buick was parked; officers delayed contact for about twenty minutes due to an unrelated traffic stop.
- Upon approaching the vehicle, officers smelled burnt marijuana and observed Dingess holding a marijuana blunt; Dingess discarded the blunt toward a passenger, later identified as his brother.
- A struggle occurred, Dingess was tasered, and officers found a loaded nine-millimeter pistol on his person and a marijuana blunt in the car.
- Dingess was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon; he moved to suppress the evidence, and the district court denied; he entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the suppression ruling.
- The district court's suppression ruling was challenged on whether the initial encounter was a consensual encounter or a Terry stop, and whether probable cause existed before the seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was a Terry stop requiring reasonable suspicion | Dingess contends officers blocked exit and used police power to seize him. | Dingess argues officers initiated a consensual encounter rather than a Terry stop. | Encounter was consensual; no Terry stop. |
| Whether probable cause existed before seizure | Probable cause did not arise until after the marijuana was observed. | Probable cause existed before the encounter ripened into a seizure due to smell of marijuana and visible blunt. | Probable cause existed before seizure. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pearce, 531 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (frames warrantless encounters: consensual, Terry stop, or arrest)
- United States v. Gross, 624 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2010) (seizure assessment based on officer behavior and reasonableness)
- United States v. Davis, 514 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2008) (consent-based encounters depend on objective behavior, not subjective suspicion)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (establishes factors for determining whether there is a seizure)
- United States v. Smith, 783 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1986) (entry onto driveway does not violate privacy where open access exists)