935 F.3d 638
8th Cir.2019Background
- On a January night in a high‑crime area of Independence, MO, Officer Joseph Hand encountered Michael Lowry at a bus stop shelter; another individual (Parks) in a nearby shelter was known to be banned and being confronted by Officer Hand.
- Officer Hand observed Lowry look at him and twice walk behind the shelter; concerned Lowry was avoiding contact, Hand shined a flashlight and ordered Lowry to come over rather than approach because he had a non‑deputized ride‑along and was occupied with Parks.
- Hand asked Lowry for identification, ran a warrant check while Lowry waited by the patrol car, and the check returned outstanding warrants and a violent‑person warning.
- After learning of the warrants, Hand asked Lowry to put his hands behind his back; Lowry then told Hand he had a firearm, a magazine, and a baton; Hand arrested and searched him, recovering the gun and other items.
- Lowry moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unlawful Terry stop; the magistrate and district court found reasonable suspicion and denied suppression. Lowry entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit held Officer Hand lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Lowry, but applied the attenuation doctrine because the preexisting warrant was an intervening circumstance and Hand’s conduct was not flagrant, so suppression was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Terry stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion | Lowry: Officer Hand’s observations (bus stop, cold weather clothing, looking/walking behind shelter, eye contact) are innocuous and shared by many; no particularized suspicion | Government: totality (high‑crime area, avoidance, bulky clothing, backpack, behavior when officer present) justified investigatory stop | Court: No — Officer Hand lacked reasonable suspicion; behaviors were too common/innocuous to support stop |
| Whether evidence discovered after the stop must be suppressed despite the unlawful stop | Lowry: Exclusion required; discovery of warrant does not necessarily attenuate chain if stop was purposeful or a fishing expedition | Government: Attenuation applies because the warrant preexisted and compelled arrest; discovery of warrant breaks causal chain | Court: Attenuation applies; warrant was intervening circumstance and officer’s misconduct was not flagrant, so evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 606 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (explains limits on inferences from common, innocuous behavior for reasonable suspicion)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (attenuation doctrine applies where a preexisting, unconnected warrant intervenes and misconduct is not flagrant)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (investigatory stop principles)
- United States v. Quinn, 812 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2016) (contextual factors that can support reasonable suspicion beyond furtive behavior)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)