United States v. Whitfield
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24967
| 3rd Cir. | 2010Background
- Whitfield pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm with a conditional appeal of the denial of his suppression motion.
- A two-day suppression hearing produced testimony from three officers, Whitfield, Langston, and Whitfield's investigator; the district court credited the officers and did not credit Langston.
- Around 9:30 p.m. in a high-crime Camden neighborhood, officers conducting proactive patrol observed a known drug-set area via a three-car caravan.
- From the second car, Officer Redd observed Whitfield and Langston exchange something and move away; Redd reported to other officers to check the two men.
- Whitfield allegedly reached into his pocket, refused to remove his hand, and approached an officer; Rivera then grabbed Whitfield and recovered a handgun.
- The district court found the stop close but supported by reasonable suspicion based on the area, the hand-to-hand exchange, furtive movements, and Whitfield’s actions; Whitfield’s failure to comply with orders weighed in the analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to seize Whitfield? | Whitfield. | United States. | Yes; there was reasonable suspicion. |
| Can the collective knowledge of officers on scene support the seizure? | Whitfield challenges collective knowledge imputation. | United States supports collective knowledge doctrine for Terry seizures. | Yes; collective knowledge may be imputed, supporting reasonable suspicion. |
| May a stop be upheld based on furtive gestures, even if other acts appear innocent? | Whitfield argues only some behavior justified the stop. | United States argues totality supports suspicion. | Yes; the totality of circumstances supports seizure. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (reasonable suspicion in a high-crime area; totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality of the circumstances in evaluating suspicion)
- United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350 (3d Cir.2000) (acts with innocent explanations may support suspicion)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (refusal to follow orders not alone sufficient for suspicion)
- United States v. Ramirez, 473 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2007) (collective knowledge doctrine discussed (context noted))
- United States v. Belle, 593 F.2d 487 (3d Cir.1979) (collective knowledge measured for probable cause)
- United States v. Menon, 24 F.3d 550 (3d Cir.1994) (collective knowledge in other contexts; immediate apparency)
- United States v. Cook, 277 F.3d 82 (1st Cir.2002) (imputing knowledge in joint investigative stops)
- United States v. Ledford, 218 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.2000) (collective awareness in probable cause analysis)