United States v. Guardado
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23493
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Detective Burton patrolled a high-crime area in South Salt Lake City targeting graffiti/gang activity.
- Around 1:00 a.m., four Hispanic males were seen walking near a well-lit intersection; clothing suggested gang affiliation (brown color) and backpacks associated with graffiti kits.
- Burton drove by, then stopped the group based on area, time, clothing, and observed behavior; Guardado fled when officers approached.
- Burton chased Guardado; during pursuit, Guardado kept a hand near his waistband; Clark tackled him and officers demanded his left hand revealed.
- Guardado was frisked; a large firearm was found in the groin area; district court upheld the stop and frisk as constitutional, and Guardado appealed only the stop.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmatively held the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion considering high-crime area, late hour, gang-associated clothing, and Guardado’s flight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Guardado argues no reasonable suspicion given vagueness of 'high-crime area' and lack of direct gang evidence. | Guardado’s flight, late hour, area, and gang-color clothing create reasonable suspicion under Terry. | Yes, stop supported; totality of circumstances justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight and high-crime area support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances governs stop reasonableness)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion requires minimal objective justification)
- United States v. Wardlow, 528 F.3d 111 (2010) (gang-color/guided factors and flight assessed for suspicion)
- United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d 1196 (2009) (assessing factors including area and conduct for suspicion)
- United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341 (2010) (need not prove specific crime; reasonable inference suffices)
- United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139 (2004) (objective standard; focus on circumstances at seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure analysis hinges on seizure factual moment)
- United States v. Davis, 94 F.3d 1465 (1996) (flight alone not determinative; context matters)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (seizure occurs when authority restrains movement)