United States v. Gibson
366 F. Supp. 3d 14
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- On April 2, 2018 MPD Gun Recovery Unit officers in an unmarked car approached Mark Gibson at night while he walked on a sidewalk in a high‑crime area; officers wore tactical vests and shone a flashlight.
- Officer Wright (driver) asked if Gibson had a gun; Gibson said no. The parties dispute whether Wright "asked" or "ordered" Gibson to "show his waistband" and to "lift his jacket."
- The four officers failed to activate body‑worn camera audio during the initial contact (video preserved two minutes of pre‑activation visuals but no sound), violating MPD policy. Audio therefore is unavailable.
- Gibson raised both hands (visible on the preserved video), then turned and fled; during the foot pursuit he fell and officers recovered a handgun and cocaine base. Gibson was indicted on firearm and drug charges and moved to suppress tangible evidence.
- The government bore the burden to prove by a preponderance that there was no unconstitutional seizure; the district court credited Gibson’s account (corroborated by video) over Officer Hiller’s uncertain testimony and found the government failed to meet its burden.
- The court held Gibson was seized (show of authority + submission) in violation of the Fourth Amendment and suppressed the physical evidence recovered as the fruit of that seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ language and conduct constituted a "show of authority" (i.e., a seizure) | Gibson: Officer Wright ordered him to "let me see your waistband" then "lift your jacket," so a reasonable person would not feel free to leave | Gov't: Wright merely asked to see the waistband (a question), which courts have found permissible; verbal request alone is insufficient for a seizure here | Court: Found a show of authority—context (unmarked car, tactical vests, flashlight, late hour, successive directives) made the language coercive and would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave |
| Whether Gibson submitted to the show of authority | Gibson: He complied by raising both hands (corroborated on video), signaling submission | Gov't: Raising hands was not full compliance or intended to show waistband; mere words insufficient | Court: Found submission—raising hands after being told to show waistband constituted compliance (even if momentary); later flight does not negate initial submission |
| Whether evidence recovered is admissible when arrest/search followed the seizure | Gibson: Evidence is fruit of unconstitutional seizure and must be suppressed | Gov't: Did not argue attenuation or independent source; relied on legality of encounter | Court: Suppressed tangible evidence because seizure was but‑for cause of discovery and government did not rebut causal link |
| Effect of officers’ failure to activate body cameras | Gibson: Non‑activation prevented recording of audio and undermines government’s account; violation of MPD policy | Gov't: Not dispositive; asserts officers asked questions rather than commanded | |
| Court: Failure to activate cameras was a policy violation that deprived court of best evidence; supported credibility finding for Gibson and weight against government |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (seizures and brief investigative stops require reasonable, objective justification)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (a seizure occurs when, under the totality of circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (rolling roadblock/questioning technique can be lawful where officers merely ask waistband questions; language matters)
- United States v. Castle, 825 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (officer directives and physical touching can constitute a seizure; consider language, time, place, uniforms)
- United States v. Brodie, 742 F.3d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ordering a person to put hands on a car constituted a seizure when complied with)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (when seizure is effected by show of authority, submission is required for Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree suppression principle)