United States v. Hood, 435 F.Supp.3d 1

On Sept. 16, 2019 at ~11:30 p.m., Metropolitan Police GRU (Gun Recovery Unit) in two unmarked cars encountered Deshawn Hood on a residential street in NE D.C.; Hood greeted officers and said he was trying to get home.
The lead car radioed the second car to “speak to him real quick.” The second car pulled up next to Hood; Officers Jacobs and Torres exited in tactical vests and Jacobs told Hood to “hold on a sec.”
Hood raised his hands unprompted, told officers they had no consent to search him, and said he was going home; as Jacobs approached, Jacobs later observed an apparent bulge in Hood’s front pants area.
Hood said the bulge was his penis; officers nonetheless surrounded and handcuffed him, then recovered a loaded Glock with extended magazine from his pants.
Hood was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and moved to suppress evidence, arguing the initial stop was an unconstitutional seizure without reasonable suspicion.
The court concluded the encounter became a Fourth Amendment seizure when Jacobs said “hold on a sec,” the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion at that moment, inevitable discovery did not apply, and suppressed the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hood was seized when officer said “hold on a sec”	Hood: that command, combined with two armed officers exiting an unmarked car at night, was a show of authority that seized him.	Govt: no seizure until later (when told to “stop backing away”); earlier interaction was consensual questioning.	Court: seizure occurred when Jacobs said “hold on a sec.”
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion at time of seizure	Hood: no articulable facts supported suspicion at that moment.	Govt: high‑crime area, Hood blading away, unsolicited hands up, late hour gave reasonable suspicion.	Court: no reasonable suspicion at time of the initial seizure.
Whether Hood submitted to a show of authority (Hodari D. issue)	Hood: his stopping and compliance constituted submission to authority.	Govt: Hood’s brief steps after command show non‑submission.	Court: Hood submitted (not fleeing); the brief movement did not defeat seizure.
Whether inevitable discovery saves the evidence	Hood: discovery resulted from unlawful seizure; not inevitable.	Govt: Jacobs would have seen the bulge regardless of the initial command.	Court: inevitable discovery not established; discovery was the product of the unlawful seizure.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established stop‑and‑frisk reasonable suspicion standard)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (reasonable suspicion must be founded on articulable facts)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounters vs. seizures)
Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (factors indicating a show of authority)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (high‑crime area and evasive behavior considered in Terry analysis)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (submission vs. flight in seizure analysis)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (when a passenger is seized by police stop of vehicle)
United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussion of GRU tactics and limits on stops in high‑crime areas)
United States v. Castle, 825 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (seizure analysis where officer told defendant to “hold on”)
United States v. Holmes, 505 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (standards for inevitable discovery)