United States v. Howard, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18185

Background

Police staking out a van linked to Marcus Johnson (suspected of recent violent crimes) approached to arrest Johnson; four men including Darius Howard exited the van.
Detective Wiza, alone and armed, ordered all four men to the ground at gunpoint to secure a dangerous arrest; Wiza briefly handcuffed and gave a one-handed frisk to Howard.
Officer O’Keefe arrived, completed Johnson’s arrest (finding cocaine on Johnson), noticed blood on the men’s clothes, handcuffed and frisked Howard more thoroughly, and retrieved a sandwich bag of cocaine from Howard’s pocket.
Police searched the van and found a gun wrapped in a bloody shirt; Madison police identified the men as suspects in a recent armed robbery and arrested them; Howard later admitted using the shirt to wipe blood from the gun.
Howard moved to suppress the cocaine and post-arrest statements; the district court denied suppression; he pled guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling and later challenged his sentence.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: the initial stop was reasonable given the dangerous arrest in progress, and even if the second frisk were unconstitutional, the cocaine was inevitably discoverable after arrest following discovery of the bloody gun and identification as robbery suspects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Was the seizure (ordering to ground/brief detention) constitutional?	Howard: seizure was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment intrusion without individualized suspicion.	Govt: brief seizure was justified to protect officers while arresting a violent suspect (Johnson) and those who exited with him.	Held: stop reasonable—officers had probable cause to arrest Johnson for violent crime and safety justified brief seizure of van occupants.
2) Was the frisk that yielded the cocaine constitutional?	Howard: second, more thorough frisk exceeded Terry because no particularized suspicion that Howard was armed/dangerous.	Govt: officer reasonably frisked given chaotic, potentially dangerous situation; officer may not have known of prior brief frisk.	Held: Court did not decide definitively but found no reversible error because inevitable discovery applies.
3) Could the cocaine be suppressed under the inevitable discovery doctrine?	Howard: evidence tainted by unconstitutional search should be suppressed.	Govt: by a preponderance, police would have lawfully discovered the bloody gun, identified suspects, and lawfully searched incident to arrest.	Held: inevitable discovery satisfied—blood/gun discovery and imminent identification/arrest made a lawful search incident to arrest inevitable.
4) Were sentencing rulings erroneous or unreasonable (armed-robbery cross-reference; 180-month drug sentence)?	Howard: cross-reference improperly applied (he possessed gun only after robbery); sentencing court failed to address key arguments and imposed an unreasonable sentence.	Govt: even if cross-reference questionable, sentences run concurrently so issue is moot; district court considered arguments and 180-month below-Guidelines term was reasonable.	Held: affirmed—cross-reference issue need not be resolved (moot); district court adequately considered arguments and 180-month sentence was substantively reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (brief investigatory stops and frisks require reasonable suspicion)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine permits admission of evidence that would have been lawfully discovered)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (police may detain occupants during execution of warrant for officer safety)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (officers may order passengers out of stopped car without suspicion)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are "seized" when police stop a vehicle)
Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (safety interests can justify measures during searches/arrests)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (officer making lawful arrest may search person incident to arrest)