United States v. Raymond McKinney
980 F.3d 485
5th Cir.2020Background
- At ~9:00–10:00 p.m., Raymond McKinney and three others stood on a sidewalk near a gas station that had been the site of recent drive‑by shootings; two officers in an unmarked SUV approached.
- Officers immediately ordered the group to stop, frisked the two men first, and then Officer Carmona patted down McKinney after asking and receiving verbal non‑consent; a handgun was found in McKinney’s waistband.
- The only record evidence was body‑camera and dash‑camera video and a police report; no evidentiary hearing or witness affidavits were held or submitted.
- The district court denied McKinney’s motion to suppress, relying on factors it found: recent gang violence in the area, red/gang‑colored clothing, McKinney’s jacket and backpack on a warm night, the woman’s evasive movement, and an officer’s report that someone appeared to drop something.
- McKinney entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the record did not support reasonable suspicion to detain at inception and vacated the conviction and sentence, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the initial seizure (reasonable suspicion to stop) | Officers were patrolling a high‑crime, recently shot‑up area; group presence there justified stop. | Presence on a sidewalk in a residential/commercial area and brief group presence do not give particularized suspicion. | Reversed: record fails to show reasonable suspicion at inception. |
| Weight of clothing and colors as support for suspicion | McKinney and group wore red or gang‑associated colors and unusual clothing for heat; colors indicated gang affiliation. | Only McKinney wore red shorts; other clothing (pink bow) was not red; single article of color in a mixed group is insufficient. | Court: red clothing alone (as shown) was insufficient to supply reasonable suspicion. |
| Jacket/backpack and other behavior as indicia of concealment/evasion | Jacket and backpack on a warm night could conceal a weapon; woman’s movement and alleged dropping of an item supported suspicion. | Jacket may have been light/rain‑appropriate; woman’s minor movement was not flight; alleged dropping is unsupported on video. | Court: those facts were ambiguous or not shown on record; they do not establish reasonable suspicion on this record. |
| Lawfulness of the frisk (reasonable belief person was armed and dangerous) | Officers reasonably suspected McKinney was armed based on clothing, refusal to consent, and location. | Refusal to consent is not evidence of wrongdoing; legality of frisk must be measured by facts known before the frisk. | Court: frisk lacked independent justification on this record; refusal and later discovery of gun are irrelevant to pre‑search suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing investigatory stop/frisk framework)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (presence in high‑crime area and unprovoked flight as contextual factor)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (officer suspicion measured by what was known before search)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (pat‑down requires individualized suspicion that suspect is armed)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality of circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Monsivais, 848 F.3d 353 (stop must be justified at inception)
- United States v. Jaquez, 421 F.3d 338 (presence in high‑crime area alone insufficient)