United States v. Shannan Lee Winemiller
679 F. App'x 759
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- A commercial airline pilot reported being struck by a high‑intensity laser; a police helicopter investigating was also struck.
- A helicopter officer identified the location of the laser and observed only two individuals in the area.
- Ground officers arrived and found only Shannan Winemiller and Rolando Espinoza at the identified location.
- An officer illuminated them, ordered them forward with hands up, and conducted pat‑downs; one laser pointer was found on Espinoza.
- Officers asked if there were dangerous items near the chairs where the men had been sitting; a second laser pointer was located on Espinoza’s porch.
- Winemiller was convicted by a jury of aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft (18 U.S.C. §§ 39A and 2) and appealed, arguing suppression error and insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Winemiller's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and frisk that led to discovery of lasers violated the Fourth Amendment | Stop was unlawful: merely being in area of criminal activity is insufficient for stop | Helicopter identification of precise location plus report of lasers created reasonable, articulable suspicion and safety risk justified frisk | Court affirmed: stop and frisk reasonable under circumstances; no expectation of privacy in friend’s pocket/porch |
| Whether circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support conviction | Conviction rests only on circumstantial evidence and thus should be reversed | Circumstantial evidence (admissions and situational facts) permitted the jury to infer guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Court affirmed: jury reasonably found guilt; Winemiller admitted playing with lasers and thought they hit multiple aircraft |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in area of suspected criminal activity alone does not justify stop)
- United States v. Perkins, 348 F.3d 965 (11th Cir. 2003) (same principle regarding stops)
- United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2007) (stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion based on objective facts)
- United States v. Griffin, 696 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2012) (officer may frisk if reasonable belief safety is threatened)
- United States v. McKennon, 814 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir. 1987) (limitations on expectation of privacy in another’s belongings)
- United States v. Sarda‑Villa, 760 F.2d 1232 (11th Cir. 1985) (similar privacy‑expectation analysis)
- United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (officer safety questions and related area searches permissible)
- United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2014) (circumstantial evidence can support a conviction)
AFFIRMED.