United States v. Julius Hayden, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13512

On Dec. 20, 2011, around 9 p.m., two St. Louis officers observed Julius Hayden and another man near a vacant house in a high-crime area with recent burglaries; officers had no prior information tying the men to crime.
Officers approached in a patrol vehicle, shined a flashlight, and identified themselves as police; testimony conflicts about whether an urgent command or loud "Police" was used.
Officer Martorano testified that Hayden turned away and put his hand in his right jacket pocket; after ordering Hayden to remove his hand, Martorano frisked him and found a loaded .22 revolver.
Magistrate judge initially found the encounter a seizure when officers announced themselves and recommended suppression because no reasonable suspicion existed.
The government moved for reconsideration and a supplemental hearing, presenting photographs and Officer Kegel’s testimony; the magistrate reopened the hearing over Hayden’s objection.
After the second hearing the magistrate concluded the seizure occurred only when Hayden put his hand in his pocket and that officers had reasonable suspicion; the district court adopted that recommendation. Hayden pleaded guilty reserving the suppression appeal.

Issue	Hayden's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate abused discretion by reopening the suppression hearing	Reopening improper because government proffered only previously available evidence and gave no adequate justification	Magistrate has discretion to receive additional evidence before issuing a final R&R; district courts may receive new evidence during de novo review	No abuse of discretion; reopening allowed
Whether the stop/seizure violated the Fourth Amendment (motion to suppress)	The officers seized Hayden when they exited, shined a flashlight, and said "Police," without reasonable suspicion, so the frisk and firearm seizure were unlawful	Initial approach was consensual; seizure occurred later when Hayden turned away and put hand in pocket, at which point officers had reasonable suspicion of imminent burglary/weapon	No Fourth Amendment violation; seizure justified by reasonable suspicion (denial of suppression affirmed)

United States v. Chavez Loya, 528 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2008) (reopening suppression hearings—contextual authority on reconsideration)
United States v. Johnson, 944 F.2d 396 (8th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for reopening proceedings)
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (district court may receive further evidence during de novo review of magistrate recommendations)
United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 1994) (same principle on receiving new evidence at de novo review)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounter standard—no seizure if a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (definition of seizure and consensual encounters)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (distinguishing mere identification as police from an official command to stop)
United States v. Mabery, 686 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2012) (shining a flashlight is not necessarily coercive to create a seizure)
United States v. Douglass, 467 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2006) (similar holding on flashlight use and consensual encounters)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable suspicion justifies brief investigative stops and frisk for weapons)
United States v. Morgan, 729 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2013) (totality of circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)