United States v. Powell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22795
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Powell, a passenger in a Buick stopped for a burned-out headlight, was removed from the car and subjected to a patdown based on caution data indicating prior armed robbery.
- Police learned Powell’s license was suspended via radio after the stop and conducted a patdown solely on that basis.
- A handgun was found in a backpack later at the scene, and crack cocaine was discovered during a subsequent search.
- Powell was indicted for drug and gun offenses; the district court denied suppression of the evidence as arising from a valid patdown for safety.
- On appeal, Powell challenged the patdown as lacking reasonable suspicion; the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment, ruling no reasonable suspicion supported the frisk.
- The majority focused on the insufficiency and lack of specificity of caution data and held that the patdown violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did officers have reasonable suspicion to pat down Powell? | Powell argues no reasonable suspicion. | Government contends caution data shows risk Powell is armed and dangerous. | No reasonable suspicion; patdown improper. |
| Can caution data alone justify a frisk? | Caution data alone is insufficient. | Caution data sufficient when combined with other factors. | Caution data alone insufficient; combined factors do not create reasonable suspicion. |
| Does totality of circumstances justify the patdown?</Issue> | Totality does not support frisk given cooperative stop. | Totality supports officer safety due to prior armed robbery, license status, and deception. | Totality does not yield reasonable suspicion; patdown reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (reasonable-suspicion standard is objective and case-specific)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop-and-frisk framework; frisk for weapons requires reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2000) (anonymous tips; protectiveness after lawful stop)
- United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011) (concerns about using innocent facts as suspicious indicators)
- United States v. Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2011) (reasonable suspicion standard applied to a different context; limits of prior activity)
- United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011) (contextual, totality-of-circumstances approach to suspicion)
- United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2008) (context matters in assessing reasonable suspicion)