United States v. Shaun Graves, 877 F.3d 494

On Oct. 16, 2014, plainclothes Officer Simmons, in an unmarked car in a high‑crime area, heard a radio dispatch of possible gunshots and a description of two suspects (dark hooded sweatshirts) walking west.
Less than five minutes later Simmons saw Graves and another man matching that description walking west; Simmons observed Graves’ pronounced, labored gait and tense arm carriage, suggesting he might be concealing a weapon.
Graves made eye contact with Simmons, raised his arms in a Y shape, then left his companion and approached Simmons’ vehicle; Simmons displayed his badge, announced “Police,” and handcuffed Graves.
During a pat‑down for weapons, Simmons felt multiple small hard objects in Graves’ front pockets that, by his experience, felt like crack packets; he removed them and found packets of Depakote and a .22 caliber bullet. Later Graves admitted a loaded .380 in his boot.
Graves moved to suppress the physical evidence and statements; he pleaded guilty while reserving appeal rights as to suppression and sentencing. The district court denied suppression and treated Graves as a career offender based on two prior North Carolina common‑law robbery convictions, producing a 100‑month sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Graves)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't / Court)	Held
Validity and scope of stop and frisk	Simmons lacked reasonable suspicion to stop/frisk; even if frisk valid, officer exceeded scope by searching for drugs rather than weapons	Totality of circumstances (high‑crime area, matching broadcast, gait, conduct approaching officer) gave reasonable suspicion; officer felt objects that reasonably felt like drugs before ruling out weapons	Stop and frisk valid; frisk did not exceed bounds because officer had probable cause to seize contraband based on tactile identification before he determined whether object was a weapon
Career‑offender enhancement based on prior NC common‑law robbery	NC common‑law robbery allows only de minimis force and thus may not match the generic federal robbery element if generic robbery requires more than minimal force; enhancement improper if elements mismatch	Generic robbery for Guidelines should track majority of state statutes (which require only minimal force); NC common‑law robbery is elementally the same as generic robbery	Held that generic robbery requires no more than de minimis force (following majority of states); NC common‑law robbery is the categorical equivalent of generic robbery; enhancement proper

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (limited investigatory stops and protective frisks under Fourth Amendment)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (presence in high‑crime area and sudden flight/behavior relevant to reasonable suspicion)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (plain‑feel doctrine permits seizure of contraband discovered during lawful frisk)
United States v. Yamba, 506 F.3d 251 (3d Cir.) (officer may seize contraband felt during frisk if tactile experience gives probable cause)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (definition of generic crimes for enhancement purposes should be informed by common state definitions)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Sentencing Act purpose to increase uniformity; interpretive context for Guidelines)