United States v. Pontoo
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24075
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Pontoo was convicted felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Officers Michaud and Maillet stopped a man on Knox Street in Lewiston, Maine, based on a murder/hoax report linked to Gary Austin.
- The stop, frisk, and subsequent arrest occurred around 3:30 a.m. after a description mix-up and misidentification during a high-tension sequence.
- A handgun was found during a pat-down of the stopped individual, who was later identified as Pontoo rather than Austin.
- Austin was arrested on false-report charges; the gun possession charge followed from Pontoo’s arrest and subsequent investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in factual credibility | Pontoo contends the court erred in accepting inconsistent Austin descriptions | Government argues credibility finding supported by record | Not clearly erroneous; credibility findings given deference |
| Whether the stop had reasonable suspicion at inception | Pontoo argues no reasonable suspicion to stop him | Government argues totality of circumstances supported suspicion | Stop justified at inception based on surrounding facts and context |
| Whether the scope of the stop was excessive or converted into an arrest | Pontoo maintains stop was too intrusive to be Terry | Government contends measures were proportionate for safety and briefly lasted | Stop remained within permissible Terry parameters; not a de facto arrest |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest after discovering the weapon | Pontoo argues lack of evidence of permit or crime beyond discovery | Government argues discovery of concealed handgun provided probable cause | Probable cause for arrest supported by combination of facts and common sense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (framework for reasonable suspicion in Terry stops)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk rule for reasonable suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (deferential review of district court factual findings; reasonable suspicion depends on totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Ruidíaz, 529 F.3d 25 (2008) (reversible standard for factual findings and de novo review of legal conclusions)