United States v. Windom
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13313
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- On April 1, 2015, Aurora police received a report that a man (later identified as Samuel Windom) had flashed a gun inside/near Challengers Sports Bar, claimed Crips gang membership, and left in a light-blue Cadillac; the caller described his appearance and clothing.
- Officer McElroy located a Cadillac matching the description ~2 miles away, effected a high-risk traffic stop: drew weapons, used spotlighting, ordered occupants out, had them lie prone, handcuffed and patted them down.
- Windom, the front-seat passenger who matched the caller’s description, was placed prone, handcuffed, and a Smith & Wesson revolver was found in his pocket during a pat‑down. He was arrested and later federally indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- Windom moved to suppress, arguing the high‑risk stop and force transformed the investigative detention into an arrest without probable cause, making the firearm fruit of an unconstitutional seizure. The district court denied suppression.
- Windom entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the suppression issue and appealed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Windom) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ use of high‑risk stop tactics converted a Terry investigative stop into an arrest requiring probable cause | The drawn weapons, prone positioning, handcuffing, and lethal cover were so intrusive they transformed the stop into an arrest without probable cause; the underlying conduct was only a completed misdemeanor (flash of a firearm) and could not justify such force | The stop was justified at inception by reasonable suspicion; the totality of facts (recent firearm display, gang claim, time, location) gave officers an objective basis to believe the suspect was armed and dangerous, so heightened precautions were reasonable | The court held the force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and did not convert the stop into an arrest; suppression was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mosley, 743 F.3d 1317 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for suppression and force reasonableness analysis)
- United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2006) (review de novo reasonableness; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Madrid, 713 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2013) (Terry two‑part inquiry for traffic stops)
- Hensley v. United States, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (reasonable suspicion may justify stops to investigate past crimes)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits limited investigative detentions based on reasonable suspicion; balancing test)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (reasonableness balancing framework for seizures)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officers may order drivers out of vehicles for safety)
- United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (completed misdemeanors can supply reasonable suspicion to stop)
- United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455 (10th Cir. 1993) (officers justified in stopping with weapons drawn where they reasonably believed suspects might be armed)
- Novitsky v. City of Aurora, 491 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (officers may use force in Terry stops to protect safety and maintain status quo)
- United States v. Copening, 506 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2007) (felony‑takedown procedures reasonable where officers reasonably believe a loaded gun is in vehicle)
- United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir. 1982) (drawing weapons during a Terry stop does not automatically convert it into an arrest when necessary for officer safety)
- United States v. Melendez‑Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1994) (felony stop unreasonable where no indications suspects were armed or violent)
- United States v. Garcia, 459 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2006) (gang affiliation can support reasonableness of precautionary searches)
- United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993) (officer safety can outweigh individual Fourth Amendment interests when there is objective basis to believe detainee is armed and dangerous)
- United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001) (officer safety is a weighty governmental interest)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (limits on questioning during stops clarified)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness standard for force)
- United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir. 1996) (analysis of precautionary measures during stops)