United States v. Robert Lafon
681 F. App'x 603
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Lafon was stopped by Las Vegas Metro officers after an anonymous 911 caller reported a man sleeping in a parked Lexus with a needle and a gun; the caller later repeated the report in person to Officer Charles Yannis.
- The Government sought to justify the stop as supported by reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity (possible drug use/possession and presence of a firearm).
- When Yannis located the Lexus, Lafon had driven, parked, exited the vehicle, and was not passed out; Yannis observed no signs of impairment.
- Yannis testified the apartment complex was a local “hot spot” for crime based on calls for service, but provided no detailed underlying data; his testimony contained inconsistencies.
- The district court granted Lafon’s motion to suppress physical and testimonial evidence obtained from the stop; the Government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anonymous 911 tip alone gave officers reasonable suspicion to stop Lafon | Tip was reliable and described suspicious conduct (man sleeping with a needle and a gun) supporting reasonable suspicion | Tip did not allege drug use/trafficking or violent act; presence of needle and gun alone insufficient | Tip alone did not provide reasonable suspicion; not akin to emergency-type calls in Navarette/Edwards |
| Whether Yannis’s on-scene observations corroborated the tip to create reasonable suspicion | Yannis’s arrival and in-person report corroborated the tip and justified a stop | Yannis’s observations undermined the tip (Lafon was not passed out, had driven/parked/exited, no impairment observed) | On-scene investigation detracted from, not added to, reasonable suspicion |
| Whether the location being a “hot spot” could supply missing reasonable suspicion | High-crime area designation supports suspicion under Wardlow (officers may consider location) | “Hot spot” label was unsupported by specifics and given minimal weight; testimony inconsistent | The “hot spot” claim carried minimal weight and did not supply reasonable suspicion |
| Whether, viewing the totality of circumstances, officers had reasonable suspicion to stop | Totality (tip + gun/needle + location) justified brief investigatory stop | Totality did not amount to particularized, objective suspicion of ongoing criminal activity | Court affirmed suppression: no reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo for reasonable suspicion; factual findings for clear error)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (review framework for reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations)
- United States v. Edwards, 761 F.3d 977 (9th Cir.) (discussing when 911 tips describe ongoing dangerous crimes warranting stops)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (anonymous 911 tips can sometimes supply reasonable suspicion when describing violent or dangerous ongoing conduct)
- United States v. Norwood, 603 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.) (limitations of inferring drug trafficking from firearm presence)
- United States v. Rios, 449 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.) (expert testimony about firearms and drug trafficking is insufficient alone)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (officers may consider location characteristics when assessing suspicion)
- United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. en banc) (court must carefully evaluate and scrutinize “high-crime” area testimony)