United States v. Shawn Lowe, 791 F.3d 424

Background

At ~4:00 a.m. officers responded within minutes to an anonymous radio tip reporting “a black male wearing a gray hoodie with a gun in his waistband” at 914 N. Markoe St., a high‑crime area where a shooting occurred ~90 minutes earlier.
Officers McGinnis, Campbell, Pezzeca, and another arrived in multiple marked cars, exited quickly, and approached Shawn Lowe (wearing a gray hoodie) who was speaking with a friend; his hands were in his hoodie pockets and no weapon or disturbance was observed.
The officers commanded Lowe to show his hands; testimony conflicted whether Lowe immediately complied, took several steps back before stopping, or was grabbed and placed against a wall after repeated commands; during a frisk Lowe reached toward his waistband and officers recovered a firearm after a brief struggle.
Lowe was convicted after a conditional guilty plea; he moved to suppress the gun arguing the initial stop was an unlawful Terry seizure lacking reasonable suspicion.
On initial appeal this Court remanded for the district court to make specific factual findings; on remand the district court found a show of authority, that Lowe submitted by not fleeing when commands were repeated, and that reasonable suspicion existed at the seizure; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lowe)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
When was the seizure effected for Fourth Amendment purposes?	Lowe: Seizure occurred when officers first approached and issued commands; he submitted by staying put.	Govt: Seizure occurred only after officers repeated commands and Lowe failed to comply.	Seizure occurred when officers first approached and displayed authority and Lowe submitted by remaining stationary.
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion at the moment of seizure to justify a Terry stop and frisk	Lowe: At moment of seizure officers only had an anonymous tip, high‑crime area, late hour and minimal corroboration — not enough for reasonable suspicion.	Govt: Tip + neighborhood, time, and Lowe’s initial noncompliance/steps back provided reasonable suspicion.	No reasonable suspicion existed at the seizure; subsequent evidence must be suppressed.
Whether the defendant’s failure to show hands after the initial command can be considered in the reasonable suspicion analysis	Lowe: Post‑seizure conduct cannot be used to justify a stop that already occurred.	Govt: Noncompliance is part of the totality of circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion.	Court: Noncompliance occurred after seizure and cannot be used to justify it.
Whether a few steps backward is equivalent to flight negating submission	Lowe: Steps were startled reaction and not evasive flight; he submitted by staying.	Govt: Backing away shows failure to submit; can be considered in reasonable suspicion calculus.	A few backward steps in response to onrushing officers are not headlong flight and do not negate submission.

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Illinois, 448 F.3d 239 (3d Cir.) (suppression review and fruit of the poisonous tree principles)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review of reasonable suspicion legal questions)
Johnson v. Campbell, 332 F.3d 199 (3d Cir.) (timing of show of authority in vehicle/window context)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure by show of authority vs. physical force; objective test)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (submission by passive acquiescence can effect seizure)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Terry stop and frisk standard)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip describing crime without corroboration insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
Wardlow v. Illinois, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight in high‑crime area can supply reasonable suspicion)