United States v. Harold Castle
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10713
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- On Feb. 24, 2014 officers in an unmarked Dodge Ram (wearing "Police" vests) patrolled the 100 block of Yuma St., a neighborhood known for PCP distribution.
- Officers observed Castle and another man walking quickly from 133 Yuma (a building associated with PCP sales) toward an alley and a vacant backyard; Castle bent over near a U-Haul in the yard and then walked back toward the street.
- Officer Olszak ran into the alley, ordered Castle to remove his hands from his pockets; after Castle complied Olszak touched him and told him to "hold on," at which point Olszak recognized Castle from prior encounters.
- Officer Moseley later smelled PCP on Castle, saw Castle place a small vial on the ground, and arrested him; an eight-ounce bottle later was recovered near the U-Haul.
- Castle moved to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing the officers stopped him without reasonable, articulable suspicion; the District Court denied suppression and Castle was convicted of the lesser-included PCP offense; the government appeals the suppression ruling was denied and the court of appeals reviews.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "seizure" occurred when Olszak ordered Castle to "hold on" and touched him | Castle: Olszak’s command and physical contact constituted a show of authority and submission — a seizure requiring Fourth Amendment justification | Government: Castle was not seized at that moment because he continued walking and was not restrained | Court: Agreed with District Court and Castle — the command + touch in a narrow alley while officer wore a "Police" vest amounted to a seizure when Castle submitted |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop | Castle: Officers lacked particularized, objective facts showing Castle was aware of police presence or committing/attempting to commit a crime; his movements were mundane and innocuous | Government: Totality (high-crime area, rapid walking away from known PCP building into alley, furtive bending near U-Haul, officers’ familiarity with Castle/ prior PCP arrests) supported reasonable suspicion; neighborhood recognized the undercover truck | Court: Reversed District Court — government failed to show evidence that Castle knew of the officers’ presence (the critical link); inferences that he was evading police were unsupported and amounted to a hunch, so no reasonable suspicion existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Laughrin v. United States, 438 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2006) (courts must guard against "rounding up the usual suspects")
- Foster v. United States, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011) (knowledge of criminal history must be paired with concrete factors to show reasonable suspicion)
- Monteiro v. United States, 447 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (criminal history can corroborate but not substitute for objective indicators of ongoing criminality)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can be probative if the subject noticed the police)
- United States v. Brown, 334 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (furtive gestures are significant only if undertaken in response to police presence)
- United States v. Edmonds, 240 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding reasonable suspicion where record supported inference defendants recognized undercover cruiser and reacted)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (review of reasonable suspicion is de novo but appellate courts must give due weight to trial court inferences from historical facts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative stops require specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure occurs when subject submits to show of authority or is physically restrained)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (reasonable person test for whether a show of authority occurred)
- United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 1997) (presence in a high-crime area plus prior conviction is insufficient without particularized evidence)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (approach and questioning alone do not constitute a seizure if no show of authority is implied)