United States v. Lamar Clancy
979 F.3d 1135
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- On Dec. 8, 2017, Lamar Clancy and an accomplice attempted to rob a Boost Mobile store; surveillance and witnesses described the primary suspect wearing a white sweatshirt, red pants with a white stripe, red shoes, and a black ski mask.
- Store employees returned fire during the robbery; Clancy was shot in the arm and transported to Methodist South Hospital by accomplices.
- Medical staff removed Clancy’s bloodied clothing in the trauma room; some items were visible from the emergency-department hallway and later placed in a plastic bag and then a paper evidence sack by crime-scene investigators.
- Memphis police, responding to reports of the robbery and to the hospital’s notice of a shooting victim, observed the clothing from the hallway, seized and photographed it, and used it as evidence linking Clancy to the robbery.
- Clancy was charged with attempted Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and a § 924(c) firearm count; the district court denied his suppression motion and the jury convicted on both counts. Clancy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of seizure of bloodied clothing (Fourth Amendment/plain view) | Officers lawfully responded to a reported shooting, viewed incriminating clothing from a public hallway, and had lawful access to seize it | Clancy argued hospital-room privacy and alleged trespass or improper seizure after clothes were moved; challenged plain-view application | Affirmed: seizure satisfied plain-view—clothes visible from hallway, incriminating, and officers had lawful access; no warrant required |
| Whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c) (elements clause) | Government: analogous authority supports treating Hobbs Act robbery (and attempted robbery) as a crime of violence under the elements clause | Clancy: attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence | No plain error: court did not definitively decide the substantive question but affirmed because no clear or obvious error given unsettled circuit authority and supporting precedent |
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction re: advance knowledge of a firearm (Rosemond) | Government: instruction proper because Clancy himself used, brandished, and discharged a firearm during the robbery | Clancy: jury instruction was deficient because it didn’t require proof he knew in advance an accomplice would use a gun | Affirmed: no error—Rosemond’s advance-knowledge requirement applies where defendant did not himself use a gun; here Clancy personally fired the weapon, so instruction was appropriate |
| Whether officers trespassed or exceeded access by entering/remaining in hospital to seize property | Government: officers acted pursuant to routine, legitimate investigative response to a shooting victim admitted to emergency dept.; no trespass | Clancy: hospital room carries privacy expectations and officers improperly entered or later seized items after removal | Affirmed: officers viewed clothes from public hallway and acted consistent with routine policing; hospital’s post-treatment handling did not negate plain-view discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (warrant requirement and limits on searches/seizures)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view exception requires lawful vantage point, incriminating character immediately apparent, and lawful access)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (distinguishing mere observation from a search under Fourth Amendment)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (entry onto constitutionally protected areas implicates Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (holding § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aider-and-abettor must have advance knowledge of accomplice’s firearm use where defendant takes no action with respect to the gun)
- United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) (treated completed Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence under § 924(c))
- United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir. 2018) (held attempted Hobbs Act robbery can qualify under elements clause)
- United States v. Neely, 345 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2003) (similar facts but seizure found unlawful where clothing had been bagged and moved out of plain view)