United States v. Regon Hill
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9960
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Police in a multi-officer rolling patrol entered Palmetto Estates (a known drug "hotspot") around 11:00 p.m.; officers had no tip or specific suspicion about persons there.
- Officers observed a car backed into a parking space with Regon Hill (driver) and his girlfriend (passenger) sitting inside.
- As officers approached, the girlfriend exited and walked a few quick steps toward the apartment; officers described her movement as "brisk" or "hasty."
- Officer Fowler approached Hill, asked him to roll down the window (Hill opened the door instead), asked about a gun and a driver’s license (Hill said he had neither), and ordered Hill out to be frisked.
- While holding Hill during the frisk, Fowler saw the butt of a .45 in Hill’s pocket, seized it, and arrested Hill; Hill was later convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Hill moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful Terry stop; the district court denied suppression, Hill was convicted, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hill's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial stop/seizure was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion under Terry | Stop was unlawful: officers had only generalized high-crime-area knowledge and a passenger’s brief, ordinary movement; Hill was stationary and made no suspicious gestures | The combination of high-crime location, nighttime, car backed into space, and passenger’s brisk exit furnished reasonable suspicion to detain Hill | Seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion and thus violated the Fourth Amendment; evidence must be suppressed |
| Whether the passenger’s quick exit justified detaining Hill | Passenger’s movement was innocent or equivocal and, viewed in context, insufficient to create reasonable suspicion of Hill | Passenger’s evasive behavior was similar to conduct observed in prior drug investigations and thus probative | Passenger’s brief steps, seen seconds before the stop and without corroboration, did not create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by Hill |
| Whether presence in a high-crime area and nighttime alone justify Terry stop | Presence in such area/time alone is insufficient to create individualized suspicion | High-crime-area and nighttime are relevant contextual factors that, combined with other facts, can support suspicion | High-crime area and nighttime, without more particularized facts, do not justify the stop |
| Whether Hill’s answers (no license, window inoperable, no gun) supported suspicion | These answers are innocuous and do not suggest drug activity | Lack of ID or inoperable window could be suspicious in officers’ experience | Hill’s answers did not supply specific, articulable facts pointing to criminal activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes limited stop-and-frisk reasonable-suspicion rule)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (nervous, evasive behavior is a relevant contextual factor but not dispositive)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officer must suspect person is armed and dangerous to frisk following a stop)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-the-circumstances analysis for reasonable suspicion)