808 F.3d 991
4th Cir.2015Background
- Late-night encounter: Two uniformed Prince George’s County officers spotted a Virginia-plated Chevy Silverado double-parked in an apartment lot around 1:00 a.m.; occupants were a man (Stover) and a woman.
- Police maneuver: Officers pulled a marked cruiser about three feet behind the Silverado, activated emergency lights, used a spotlight, and ordered the driver back into the vehicle.
- Stover’s movements: Stover exited the truck, opened doors, walked to the hood while holding a loaded 9mm Glock, ignored shouted orders to return, and then tossed the gun onto the grass in front of the vehicle.
- Seizure dispute: Officers then confronted Stover with drawn weapons; Stover complied and was arrested. District court found the gun had been abandoned before any actual seizure.
- Procedural posture: Stover was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), moved to suppress the firearm as fruit of an illegal seizure, was denied suppression, convicted by a jury, and appealed. Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ conduct constituted a "show of authority" seizure when they blocked and lit up Stover’s parked truck | Stover: the display of lights/blocking constituted a seizure at that moment, so the gun was fruit of an illegal seizure | Government: no seizure occurred until Stover submitted; he abandoned the gun before submission (Hodari D.) | Court: officers’ conduct was a show of authority; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave (seizure factor satisfied) |
| Whether Stover had "submitted" to police authority before discarding the gun (timing of seizure) | Stover: he passively acquiesced by remaining at the vehicle focal point and thus was seized when lights/blocкed in | Government: Stover did not submit—he exited, ignored orders, walked to the hood with a loaded gun and tossed it before complying | Held: Stover did not submit until confronted with an armed officer at the hood; tossing the gun preceded submission and thus was abandoned, admissible evidence |
| Proper governing test for submission: Hodari D. (submission required) vs. Brendlin (passive acquiescence) | Stover: Brendlin’s passive-acquiescence framework applies because the vehicle was parked and a person may signal submission passively | Government: Hodari D. controls the inquiry about submission; submission must precede discovery for Fourth Amendment protection | Held: Brendlin and Hodari D. are consistent; court applied those precedents and found no submission before abandonment |
| Whether suppression should be compelled given equivocal facts and disputed testimony | Stover: disputed timeline and brief duration suggest seizure occurred earlier; suppression appropriate | Government: district court’s factual findings (viewed for clear error) support denial of suppression; appellate review defers to those findings | Held: appellate court reviews facts for clear error, views evidence favorably to government, and affirms denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (no Fourth Amendment seizure without submission to show of authority; abandoned contraband tossed before submission is not protected)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passive acquiescence can constitute submission; passenger in stopped car can be seized even if unable to signal submission)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (objective test for show of authority: whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (seizure occurs by physical force or show of authority; checks Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- United States v. Jones, 678 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2012) (blocking a car and immediate approach by armed uniformed officers demonstrates a strong show of authority)
- United States v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151 (4th Cir. 1993) (failure to submit where defendant ignored orders and reached for a weapon; conduct consistent with preparation to attack)