United States v. HOOD, 1:19-cr-00315

On Sept. 16, 2019, at ~11:30 p.m., Metropolitan Police GRU officers in two unmarked cars approached Deshawn Hood on a residential street in NE D.C.; officers wore tactical vests and used flashlights; Officer Jacobs recorded the encounter on body-worn camera.
The lead car radioed the second car to “speak to him real quick.” The second car pulled alongside Hood as he crossed the street; Jacobs exited and told Hood to “hold on a sec.”
Hood raised his hands unsolicited and said the officers had no consent to search him and that he was going home. Jacobs approached and shortly thereafter observed an “abnormally large bulge” at Hood’s waistband.
Officers surrounded and handcuffed Hood; a radio code indicating a gun was broadcast and officers recovered a loaded Glock with an extended magazine from Hood’s pants.
Hood moved to suppress the firearm and derivative evidence, arguing the stop was an unconstitutional seizure because officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion; the government contended the encounter was consensual until officers saw the bulge and that discovery was inevitable.
The court found Hood was seized when Jacobs said “hold on a sec,” the officers lacked reasonable suspicion at that moment, inevitable discovery did not apply, and suppressed the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov’t)	Defendant's Argument (Hood)	Held
Whether Jacobs’ phrase “hold on a sec” constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure	Not a seizure; at most a consensual encounter or seizure occurred later when officers ordered “stop backing away”	"Hold on a sec" was an authoritative command in context and thus a seizure	Seizure occurred when Jacobs said "hold on a sec"; reasonable person would not feel free to leave
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion at the time of seizure	High-crime area, Hood’s body posture, unsolicited hands-up and statement he was going home supplied suspicion	No officer had observed the waistband bulge yet; posture and presence in a high-crime area alone insufficient	No reasonable suspicion existed at the time of the seizure
Whether Hood’s subsequent limited movement defeated the seizure (Hodari D. issue)	Hood’s steps showed non‑submission, so no seizure until later	Hood ceased movement promptly and exhibited submission to authority	Court rejected Gov’t’s Hodari D. argument; Hood submitted and was seized when told to “hold on a sec”
Whether inevitable discovery saves the evidence	Bulge would have been seen anyway as Jacobs approached; discovery independent of the seizure	Unclear that Jacobs would have seen the bulge absent the seizure; theory speculative	Inevitable discovery inapplicable; government failed to prove the gun would have been found without the unlawful seizure

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
Sokolow v. United States, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion standard for Terry stops)
Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors showing show of authority/seizure)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounter vs. seizure analysis)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (flight/ non‑submission and seizure definition)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (high‑crime area and flight as factors for suspicion)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (when a person is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes)
United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (criticizes GRU tactics; relevant context on patrolling high‑crime areas)
United States v. Castle, 825 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (seizure analysis under show-of-authority factors)
United States v. Wood, 981 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (stopping language can constitute an order/seizure)
United States v. Holmes, 505 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (government must prove inevitable discovery by preponderance)
United States v. Gibson, 366 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2018) (GRU stop facts and seizure analysis)