United States v. Singletary
798 F.3d 55
2d Cir.2015Background
- At ~10:45 p.m. in Rochester, Officer Amy Pfeffer saw Laverne Singletary walking carrying an object the size of a beer can wrapped in a brown paper bag; Pfeffer observed him holding it "very steady," as if to avoid spilling.
- Pfeffer, aware that people often conceal open alcoholic containers in brown bags and that open-container possession is prohibited by local ordinance, directed probation Officer Robert Masucci to stop Singletary.
- When ordered to stop, Singletary replied "Who me?" and walked away; Masucci placed a hand on his shoulder, Singletary tossed the bagged can, pushed away and fled. Beer spilled on Pfeffer and she smelled alcohol.
- Officers chased, tackled and arrested Singletary; during the struggle they found a handgun at the scene and later recovered 13 bags of marijuana from Singletary’s sweatshirt pocket.
- Singletary moved to suppress the gun and drugs as fruits of an unlawful Terry stop; the magistrate and district court suppressed the evidence, but the government appealed.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of an open-container violation and therefore suppression was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Singletary) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Singletary for violating the local open-container ordinance | Observations (beer-sized can, brown paper bag, cautious carrying) gave articulable, objective facts supporting reasonable suspicion to briefly investigate | Officers had only a "hunch"; no drinking observed and thus no particularized suspicion | Held: Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; brief investigatory stop permissible under Terry |
| Whether discarding the bag and spilled beer could cure an initially unlawful stop and provide independent probable cause for arrest | Even if stop were unlawful, Singletary’s act of tossing the bag and flight produced independent probable cause to arrest | The evidence is tainted if the initial stop was unlawful; spilled beer came from an unlawful stop | Held: Court did not reach this issue because it found the stop lawful (no attenuation analysis necessary) |
| Whether Masucci (probation officer) was authorized to participate in a non-probation-related stop, affecting Fourth Amendment analysis | Masucci acted at direction of a police officer; any state-law limits on probation officers do not control Fourth Amendment reasonableness | Masucci lacked authority under NY law to detain persons unrelated to probation duties, undermining the stop | Held: Court skeptical of the state-law objection and held federal Fourth Amendment analysis controls; no constitutional problem with Masucci’s participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigatory stop standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (review standards for suppression rulings: facts for clear error, legal/mixed questions de novo)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (commonsense inferences about behavior can inform reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Bailey, 743 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 2014) (illustrates application of Terry and totality analysis in the Second Circuit)