United States v. Randy Johnson
2016 WL 2893351
7th Cir.2016Background
- Police in Milwaukee observed a car stopped within 15 feet of a crosswalk (potential violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.53(5)); two squad cars pulled up alongside and behind the car after sunset.
- Officers shone lights into the car and observed a back-seat passenger (Randy Johnson) attempt to hide a firearm; Johnson, a felon, was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court denied Johnson’s motion to suppress; Johnson entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed solely on the suppression issue.
- Majority: Court held the police had at least reasonable suspicion (and arguably probable cause) to investigate the parking violation; officers could lawfully approach and observe the car from a public vantage point, and evidence would have been observed even absent the more aggressive deployment.
- Majority also held that the additional show of force (two cruisers, bright lights, removal/handcuffing) did not make suppression appropriate where the gun would have been discovered lawfully (inevitable discovery/harmless causation)—damages, not suppression, are the proper remedy for excessive tactics.
- Dissent: Judge Hamilton would reverse—argues seizure of occupants was an unreasonable, highly intrusive investigatory stop based on a minor parking infraction; the stop was disproportionate and not justified by the circumstances, and suppression (not merely damages) is the appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the stop/seizure based on suspected parking violation | The parking violation (at most a citation) does not justify seizing the occupants; Terry/Whren should not be extended to enable intrusive seizures for minor parking offenses | A car stopped within 15 feet of a crosswalk gave police probable cause/reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate; pretextual enforcement is permitted under Whren | Majority: police had at least reasonable suspicion (and probable cause to cite); stop/investigation reasonable under Shields and Whren; AFFIRMED |
| Whether officers’ approach (two cruisers, bright lights) and quick removal/handcuffing required suppression | The aggressive deployment transformed a mere approach into an unreasonable seizure; occupants were seized before any furtive movement and exclusion is the proper remedy | The additional tactics did not cause discovery; officers could have lawfully walked up and seen the gun from a public vantage point, so suppression is unnecessary—damages remedy available | Majority: suppression unwarranted because evidence would have been discovered lawfully; excessive-show rationale does not require exclusion |
| Inevitable discovery / causal sequence of evidence | The furtive movement that revealed the gun was a reaction to the unlawful seizure; evidence is tainted | Evidence would have been observed even without the seizure (an officer could have approached and seen the firearm) — causal chain independent of contested tactics | Majority: evidence admissible under inevitable-discovery/harmless-causation reasoning |
| Remedy for excessive or disproportionate tactics | Suppression is an appropriate deterrent remedy for unreasonable seizures | Damages (civil suit) are the correct remedy when unlawful tactics did not affect the discovery of evidence | Majority: damages, not exclusion, are appropriate when the same evidence inevitably would have been found; Dissent: exclusion warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual traffic stops permissible)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stops require reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Shields, 789 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2015) (parking violation supported investigatory stop)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (arrest for minor offenses permissible under Fourth Amendment)
- Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (observations from public vantage point constitutional)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (knock-and-announce violation does not require exclusion when evidence inevitably would have been found)
- United States v. Thornton, 197 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 1999) (approach to parked car lawful under circumstances)
- United States v. Jones, 214 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2000) (damages, not suppression, for excessive force when same evidence would have been found)
- United States v. Langford, 314 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2002) (limits on exclusion when other remedies exist)