United States v. Jordan
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5235
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jordan, a convicted felon, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment plus five years' supervised release.
- The district court denied Jordan's motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss for selective prosecution; he challenges both on appeal.
- Atlanta Police Department officers observed Jordan in a high-crime area, as he walked in the middle of the street and became belligerent when confronted about it.
- Officer observed a gun-shaped bulge in Jordan's pocket; when approached, Jordan fled and was chased, during which officers wrestled the gun away and arrested him.
- ATF testimony established the firearm's interstate connections (gun manufactured outside Georgia; shipped/ads testimony), supporting minimal nexus to interstate commerce.
- Jordan had been convicted of multiple prior burglaries, establishing ACCA enhancement; the government relied on these prior convictions to sustain the ACCA sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression was proper as fruit of an illegal seizure | Jordan | Jordan | No error; reasonable suspicion justified a Terry stop, and seizure occurred only after Jordan fled. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying a selective-prosecution motion | Jordan | Jordan | District court properly denied; no evidence of discriminatory effect or purpose; no right to discovery or an evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional facially or as applied | Jordan | Jordan | Section 922(g)(1) upheld both facially and as applied; had minimal nexus to interstate commerce and firearm's interstate connections shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.2000) (mixed questions of fact and law in suppression rulings)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief seizures with reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Perez, 443 F.3d 772 (11th Cir.2006) (describes levels of police-citizen encounters and seizures)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (minimal objective justification required for stop)
- United States v. Hunter, 291 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir.2002) (recognizes factors for reasonable suspicion in Terry stops)
- United States v. Reeh, 780 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.1986) (defensive behavior as a factor in stop analysis)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (equality-prosecution standard for discovery in selective-prosecution claims)
- United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.2001) (interstate nexus shown by firearm manufactured out of state)
- United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir.1996) (minimal nexus to interstate commerce for § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir.2008) (enforcing jurisdictional requirements for commerce clause challenges)
- United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.2001) (jurisdictional nexus and commerce clause considerations for § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800 (11th Cir.2000) (selective-prosecution standard and burden of proof)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (discrimination in prosecutorial decision-making requires purposeful actions)
- Bass v. United States, 536 U.S. 862 (2002) (statistical data alone does not prove discriminatory effect)