689 F. App'x 840
6th Cir.2017Background
- On Oct. 24, 2014, Detroit officers saw Earnest Matthews, who matched a prior robbery suspect description; when approached he ran, discarded a pistol, was chased, tripped, and was arrested; an officer retrieved the abandoned pistol.
- Matthews was charged federally under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm) and moved to suppress the pistol as the fruit of an unlawful arrest.
- At a pretrial conference Matthews sought to exclude testimony that he matched the earlier robbery suspect description; the court precluded that evidence as irrelevant to the possession charge.
- Matthews did not testify at trial; the jury convicted him of § 922(g)(1), and the presentence report listed three prior felonies: armed robbery, carjacking, and a 1983 Michigan unarmed robbery.
- The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and imposed the 15‑year mandatory minimum, treating Michigan unarmed robbery as a ‘‘violent felony;’’ Matthews appealed suppression, the evidentiary ruling, and the ACCA enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm must be suppressed because the officers lacked basis to arrest | Matthews: officers had no lawful basis to arrest; gun was product of unlawful seizure | Government: Matthews abandoned the gun and voluntarily engaged officers; no seizure occurred requiring reasonable suspicion | Court: No suppression — officers’ account credible; gun was abandoned so no Fourth Amendment violation; voluntary encounter so no requirement of reasonable suspicion |
| Admissibility of prior robbery‑suspect description at trial | Matthews: defense wanted description admitted to challenge officers’ perception/credibility | Government: description irrelevant to whether Matthews possessed the gun nine days later | Court: No abuse of discretion — district court properly excluded description per its pretrial ruling; allowed rebuttal if opened by defense |
| Whether Michigan unarmed robbery is a "violent felony" under ACCA § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) | Matthews: statute’s phrase "putting in fear" can encompass non‑physical fears, so it is broader than ACCA’s "physical force" element | Government: Michigan law interprets "putting in fear" as fear of personal injury; thus the statute necessarily includes threatened physical force | Court: Unarmed robbery under Michigan law qualifies as a violent felony because Michigan decisions require fear of personal injury (i.e., violent force) |
| Sentence under ACCA mandatory minimum | Matthews: challenges ACCA enhancement because third prior is not a violent felony; urges resentencing without ACCA | Government: ACCA applies; 15‑year mandatory minimum proper | Court: Affirmed 15‑year ACCA sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kinison, 710 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for suppression factual findings and legal conclusions)
- United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2004) (abandonment negates Fourth Amendment protection for property)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (voluntary police encounters are not seizures under the Fourth Amendment)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional as void for vagueness)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2010) ("physical force" means "violent force" capable of causing physical pain or injury)
- United States v. Mitchell, 743 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir. 2014) (de novo review whether state offense is an ACCA violent felony; interpret state court precedent)
- Michigan v. Randolph, 466 Mich. 532 (Mich. 2002) (Michigan Supreme Court discussion treating robbery as larceny aggravated by force or threat of force; interprets "putting in fear" as fear of personal injury)