United States v. Scott
21-51084
5th Cir.Nov 29, 2022Background
- Midland police went to an apartment to locate "Brooke," suspected of violating a drug-court order; Jeffrey Scott was at Brooke’s apartment doorway.
- Officers asked Scott to step outside and whether he had weapons; Scott said “no.” Officer Fonseca grabbed Scott’s sweatshirt sleeve to move him away from the door and ordered a pat-down.
- Scott walked past the officers and ran; officers chased and apprehended him in the stairwell. Upon capture, Scott immediately told officers he had a gun; officers recovered the firearm and Scott admitted he was a felon.
- Scott was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), moved to suppress the firearm and statements, and the district court initially granted suppression but then, on reconsideration, denied suppression and convicted Scott after a bench trial on stipulated facts.
- Scott appealed the suppression denial; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial but remanded to correct a clerical error in the district court judgment (it mistakenly stated Scott pleaded guilty).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott was seized before the stairwell by a show of authority | No—no seizure until apprehension in stairwell | Yes—officers’ commands constituted a seizure by show of authority | Not a seizure by show of authority; no submission to authority because Scott fled |
| Whether Scott was seized earlier by physical force (sweatshirt grab) | The sweatshirt grab was not an apprehension; it was to move Scott away from door | The grab was a use of force amounting to a seizure | Not a seizure; grab was intended to move Scott, not to restrain him |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to seize Scott in the stairwell | Yes—presence in suspect’s apartment, combative/evasive statements, and flight gave particularized suspicion | No—initial contact lacked reasonable suspicion, so subsequent seizure/search tainted | Yes—totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion at the moment of apprehension |
| Lawfulness of the search and retention of the firearm after capture | Search and limited frisk lawful after Scott admitted he was armed; retention lawful after learning he was a felon | Search was fruit of unlawful stop and should be suppressed | Search/frisk and retention of the firearm were lawful given reasonable suspicion and Scott’s admission he was armed |
| Clerical error in judgment | Government noted the written judgment should reflect actual proceedings | Defendant pointed out the judgment erroneously states a guilty plea | Court remanded for limited correction: judgment must reflect conviction after bench trial on stipulated facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (defines seizure and limits on investigatory stops)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (objective test for show-of-authority seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (submission to authority is required for a show-of-authority seizure)
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021) (force is a seizure only if applied with intent to restrain)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable suspicion standard and totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (framework for assessing particularized suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight and evasive behavior can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1993) (officer may frisk when there are reasonable grounds to believe an individual is armed)
- United States v. Thomas, 997 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 2021) (propinquity to a suspect can support independent suspicion)
- United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings)