United States v. Marcelo Monsivais
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1910
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Deputies Baker and Marshal Saldana stopped on I‑20 to offer roadside assistance to Marcelo Monsivais, who was walking near a disabled truck; officers activated patrol lights and spoke with him.
- Monsivais walked past the patrol car and was described as nervous and repeatedly putting his hands in his pockets but complied when asked to remove them.
- After ~4 minutes, Deputy Baker announced he would pat Monsivais down for officer safety; Monsivais then stated he had a firearm in his waistband.
- Officers seized the gun, handcuffed Monsivais, and searched his person and pockets, discovering methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia; he was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).
- Monsivais moved to suppress evidence; district court denied the motion (calling the encounter a lawful Terry frisk); he pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial.
- Fifth Circuit majority reversed: held the seizure (announcement of pat‑down) was not supported by reasonable suspicion under Terry, so the frisk and subsequent evidence must be suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Monsivais (Terry stop) | Monsivais: officers lacked specific, articulable facts tying his behavior to criminal activity; seizure therefore unlawful | Government: jitteriness, putting hands in pockets, inconsistent destination, and walking past patrol car together created reasonable suspicion | Held: No reasonable suspicion prior to announcement of pat‑down; seizure violated Fourth Amendment; suppression required |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk for weapons | Monsivais: frisk improper because initial stop unlawful; no independent basis to suspect he was armed and dangerous | Government: same facts justified officer safety frisk; experienced officers’ observations merit weight | Held: Court did not decide independently because stop was unlawful; frisk could not be justified as it followed an invalid seizure |
| Whether nervousness/hand‑in‑pocket behavior can support reasonable suspicion | Monsivais: nervousness and hands in pockets, especially when compliant, are insufficient alone to infer criminality | Government: such behavior, in context and with officers’ experience, supported concern for officer safety | Held: Nervousness and hands in pockets carry little weight absent articulable link to crime; here they did not supply reasonable suspicion |
| Role of totality of circumstances and officer experience | Monsivais: totality did not produce an objectively logical inference of criminality | Government: deference to officer training/experience should uphold stop under totality | Held: Totality must yield a particularized, objective basis for suspicion; here it did not despite officers’ experience |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop and limited frisk framework)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (frisk requires reasonable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality of circumstances and de novo review for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir.) (refusing to infer criminality from largely ordinary conduct)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (seizure/
free to leaveanalysis) - United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838 (5th Cir.) (patdown upheld where officer pointed to specific, articulable facts suggesting danger)