United States v. Timothy Cloud, 994 F.3d 233

On April 7, 2017, CMPD Officers Jenkins and Skipper approached a running Dodge Avenger parked outside the Brookwood Inn, a motel in a high-crime area where a targeted task force had recently made drug-/gun-related arrests.
The Dodge had four passengers (all juveniles, as later determined); the driver’s seat was initially empty. Officers parked a marked police vehicle behind the Dodge, partially blocking it, and approached in uniform with flashlights.
Officer Jenkins observed a rear-seat passenger (L.W.) place what he believed to be a firearm under the driver’s seat; L.W. appeared nervous and tried to conceal the item.
Cloud exited Room 110, sat in the Dodge’s driver seat (the seat under which the firearm had been hidden), later exited the vehicle, refused consent to search, and walked about the motel while speaking on his phone.
Officer Jenkins searched under the driver’s seat, recovered the handgun he had earlier seen, radioed that a gun was found, officers tried to detain Cloud, he resisted and fled, and officers discovered a stolen handgun in Cloud’s pocket.
Cloud was indicted, moved to suppress the firearm found on his person as fruit of an unlawful seizure, pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm while preserving the suppression ruling on appeal; the district court denied suppression and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cloud)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether officers seized Cloud by parking behind the Dodge / showing authority	Parking behind the car and officers’ presence constituted a show of authority that seized Cloud before any reasonable suspicion	Even if officers made a show of authority, Cloud did not acquiesce to it, so no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred	Officers made a show of authority once Cloud sat in the driver’s seat, but Cloud did not acquiesce, so no seizure occurred (affirmed)
If a seizure occurred, whether officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Cloud	Jenkins’ observation of L.W. hiding a gun under the seat did not tie the firearm to Cloud and so did not supply suspicion specific to him	Observation of concealment, Cloud occupying the driver’s seat (control of vehicle), being the only adult, and the late-night high-crime location supplied a particularized reasonable suspicion	Even assuming a seizure, officers had reasonable, particularized suspicion to detain Cloud to investigate ownership of the firearm (affirmed)
Whether the firearm found on Cloud’s person must be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful seizure	The gun discovered on Cloud’s person was the fruit of an unlawful detention and must be suppressed	The detention/search were lawful (or no seizure occurred), so the firearm is admissible	Evidence admissible; suppression denied and conviction/ sentence affirmed

United States v. Stover, 808 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 2015) (analyzes acquiescence/passive submission to a show of authority)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (plurality) (objective test whether a person would have felt free to leave)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (a show of authority must be perceived as directed at the person to constitute a seizure)
Hodari D. v. United States, 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes attempted seizures from seizures requiring submission)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (constitutionality of brief investigatory stops and relevance of observed suspicious conduct)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (presence in a high-crime area and suspicious behavior may inform reasonable suspicion)
Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (U.S. 2020) (commonsense inference about vehicle control can support reasonable suspicion)