United States v. Mohamed
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25184
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- In Oct 2007, Boston officers pursued a shooter in Codman Square after gunshots were heard.
- Officers encountered Mohamed on Whitfield Street, matching some aspects of the suspect's escape profile.
- Mohamed was found hiding under a deck, panting and sweating, with a hooded top; a gun was later found on him during a pat-down.
- Officers handcuffed Mohamed and conducted a pat-frisk to determine whether he was armed for safety.
- Mohamed was arrested, transported to the station, and later entered a conditional guilty plea reserving suppression relief.
- District court denied the suppression motion; Mohamed appealed, challenging the stop as a de facto arrest without probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. | Mohamed contends stop lacked reasonable suspicion. | United States argues suspicion justified by flight and hiding. | Yes; reasonable suspicion supported the stop. |
| Whether the stop became a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. | Stop escalated to arrest because of guns drawn and restraints. | Actions were within investigatory stop and safety measures. | No; measures remained within a permissible investigatory stop. |
| Whether handcuffing and pat-down transformed the stop into an arrest. | Handcuffs and full restraints indicate arrest. | Handcuffs were reasonable safety precautions during an investigatory stop. | No; restraints were reasonable under the circumstances and did not convert the stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foley v. Kiely, 602 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2010) (stop may be brief when supported by reasonable suspicion)
- Schubert v. City of Springfield, 589 F.3d 496 (1st Cir. 2009) (two-step Terry framework; reasonableness governs scope)
- Brown, 621 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (reasonable suspicion must be grounded in specific facts)
- Klaucke v. Daly, 595 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2010) (touchstone is reasonableness of measures to quell suspicions)
- Meadows, 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2009) (handcuffs during stops do not necessarily convert to arrest)
- For nia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2005) (guns drawn to protect safety does not convert stop)
- Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1998) (restraints may be used when necessary to safety)
- Sanchez, 612 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (clear error standard for factual findings; de novo for law)
- Estrada v. Rhode Island, 594 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2010) (pat-downs require particularized basis to suspect weapon)
- United States v. Meadows, 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2009) (handcuffs during stops may be lawful where safety concerns exist)