United States v. Tiru-Plaza
766 F.3d 111
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Officers stopped Morales's Mitsubishi for tailgating and possible theft; Morales could not produce a license and provided an illegible registration.
- Opening the hood to inspect the VIN momentarily revealed a green pistol grip in Morales's waistband, triggering discovery of a firearm.
- Morales's gun led officers to detain the occupants and order Tiru to exit the vehicle for a pat-down search.
- Tiru was searched (pat-frisk) and a pistol was found; he was then placed into custody and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The district court denied suppression; the magistrate had recommended suppression, but the district court found an objectively reasonable basis to frisk Tiru.
- On appeal, the court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, weighing officers’ inferences and immediacy of observations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the hood inspection during the stop lawful? | Tiru argues the hood inspection extended the stop unlawfully. | US asserts the inspection was a reasonable step to verify potential theft and ensure safety. | Yes; reasonable, brief extension to dispel suspicion. |
| Was the pat-frisk of Tiru justified by reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous? | Tiru contends no particularized suspicion tied to him supported a frisk. | US contends the evolving circumstances (gun on driver, late hour, multiple occupants) gave rise to reasonable suspicion. | Yes; the totality of circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion to frisk. |
| Did the discovery of Morales's gun, and the sequence of events, render the stop unlawful and taint the firearm evidence? | Tiru challenges the expansion of stop and resulting searches as unlawful. | US argues proper officer safety and investigative steps were taken; the frisk was reasonable. | No; lawful expansion and frisk under totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McGregor, 650 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2011) (affirming Terry stop rules and frisk standards)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk standards for police safety)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (traffic violations provide objective basis for stop)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (drivers may be ordered out of a lawfully stopped vehicle)
- United States v. Ruidíaz, 529 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2008) (allows expanded investigation after stop if related to safety concerns)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (reasonable suspicion may be based on totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971 (1st Cir. 1994) (distinguishes de facto arrest from investigatory stop)