United States v. Melvin Dortch, 868 F.3d 674

Omaha gang unit officers and a U.S. Marshal patrolled an apartment building known for an active territorial dispute and recent reported shots; three recent gun recoveries nearby had occurred from vehicles violating traffic laws.
On June 4, officers observed a car and a minivan stopped side-by-side and improperly positioned; Melvin Dortch was leaning into the minivan’s passenger window in the street.
Officer Sundermeier (in a tactical vest) approached on foot without lights or drawing his weapon, asked Dortch why he was standing in the road, and asked if he had a gun.
Dortch answered the officer, placed his phone on the seat, and pressed his body against the van while wearing a heavy Carhartt-type coat on an unseasonably warm day.
Officer Sundermeier, fearing Dortch might be armed based on location, coat, posture, and freed hands, said he would pat Dortch down; the pat-down revealed a pistol in Dortch’s coat and led to arrest and a felon-in-possession prosecution.
Dortch moved to suppress the gun and statements; the magistrate and district court denied suppression; Dortch pleaded guilty reserving appeal on suppression; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s initial approach and questions constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure before the pat-down	Dortch: an armed officer walking up and questioning him made a reasonable person feel not free to leave — thus a seizure occurred prior to the pat-down	Government: mere approach and brief questioning without force or commands is not a seizure; a person is not seized simply because an officer asks questions	No seizure occurred before the pat-down; the encounter was consensual/questioning under Mendenhall/Bostick and Terry principles
Whether the pat-down (protective frisk) was justified by reasonable suspicion under Terry	Dortch: government lacked specific and articulable facts to suspect he was armed/dangerous; comparable to Jones where frisk was improper	Government: totality of circumstances—gang hotspot, recent shots and gun recoveries from similar vehicles, illegal vehicle positioning, Dortch’s proximity/interaction with vehicle, unseasonable bulky coat, posture concealing body, and freed hands—gave reasonable suspicion	Pat-down was reasonable: officer had sufficient reasonable suspicion that Dortch might be armed and dangerous; evidence need not be suppressed

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing stop-and-frisk standard)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion review de novo; totality-of-circumstances)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (approach-and-questioning does not automatically constitute a seizure)
Illinois v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-the-circumstances and deference to officer experience)
United States v. Jones, 606 F.3d 964 (8th Cir.) (frisk suppressed where facts were too general to support reasonable suspicion)