United States v. Deunte L. Humphries

ritt, by regu- not her expected, as Castillo was treated you not recover or develop, you given physician, any physician were lar or other than the doctor please contact (2) care; you If cannot reach up during for follow EMA physician, period Emergency doctor, to the Ser return Moreover, by she treated EMA. (3) should return You Department; vices clearly indi- EMA’s instructions Castillo emergency the nearest immediately to cated that its treatment illness Castillo’s Ante, at 645. any emergency.” room for The fact that Castil- would continuous. care, was referred up For Castillo follow up with the required lo was not follow * or to MD North Carolina” to her “own physician as same or with EMA does Hospital gynecologist, a Prince William concludes, majority alter the continu- days if Wall, in 3-4 Dr. for “recheck The fact ous nature of this treatment. Ibid. better.” remains that EMA instructed Castillo majority concedes Castillo The care, up sought return for follow Castillo Hospital Prince emer- William called follow care for the up and received this 14, 1999, not on gency department October treated same illness and Castillo never was care, her con- emergency but “because these by physician. an independent Under improved.” During Ibid. dition had not circumstances, little that there is believe call, attempted to Castillo phone continuous doubt that Castillo received Wall, her reach Dr. instructed Octo- enti- treatment from EMA and was thus Wall, Dr. discharge sheet. ber Virginia’s year tled to two statute toll time, however, at that was unavailable limitations. provided EMA physician thus another reasons, I foregoing respectfully For the and pre- follow treatment up Castillo with majority’s holding. dissent from type a different of medication. scribed her so, instructed physician In this EMA doing Dr. Wall or up “to follow

Castillo emergency depart- services

return to the J.A. 72.

ment if didn’t better.” [she] [feel]

Accordingly, when her condition did not Prince

improve, America, Castillo returned Wil- UNITED STATES department liam Hospital’s emergency Plaintiff-Appellant, up 1999 for additional follow October facts, major- Despite these treatment. HUMPHRIES, L. Deunte ity erroneously concludes that treat- Defendant-Appellee. Prince Hos- ment rendered William department pital’s emergency services No. 03-4567. and isolated” con- consisted of “discrete Appeals, United States Court Ante, at 650. tacts. Fourth Circuit. view, being rather “discrete my than contacts, visit on and isolated” Castillo’s 22, 2004. Argued: Jan. 14th, 10th, phone call on October October 17, 2004. Decided: June 19th, up and follow visit on October all of EMA’s continuous treatment part original illness. Unlike Mer-

Castillo’s ^[*] The EMA Hospital first visit were made aware physicians at the Prince William emergency department Castillo’s visiting she was a North Virginia at the Carolina resident time of her who was illness. findings the factual made Accepting court, we conclude as a matter the officer of law that committing to believe crime, justifying According- a his arrest. ly, suppres- we reverse district court’s pro- order and remand for further sion ceedings. 25, 2003, City

On June of Richmond Gary and Police Officers Venable A.D. Cooke, Spe- Richard Daniel ARGUED: patrolling an area of Richmond Carr Al- Attorney, cial United States Assistant drug offi- trafficking. known for As the exandria, for Reuben Virginia, Appellant. pulled police cers their marked car onto a WALKER, Greene, JOHNSON & Voll persons out- “hanging 5 to block with P.C., Richmond, Virginia, Appellee. for area, general in the side” Officer Venable McNulty, BRIEF: Paul J. United ON Humphries his area. pat saw Deunte waist Elston, Assis- Attorney, Michael J. States Venable, veteran, 16-year police a Officer Alexandria, Attorney, tant United States “security the waist to be a interpreted pat Virginia, Appellant. for check”; suspected Humphries that he instinctively confirming presence his NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and Before “checking weapon by to make sure [was] GREGORY, Judges. Circuit there.” by published and remanded Reversed they stopped patrol car After their opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote from Humphries 20 feet exited about Judge opinion, in which WILLIAMS vehicle, a strong the officers smelled joined. opinion Judge GREGORY wrote marijuana. odor of When Officer Venable judgment. concurring in the standing near began walking toward a man “out of the Humphries, Humphries saw OPINION quickly eye quickly turn and [his] corner of NIEMEYER, Judge: Circuit then fol- away.” Officer walk Venable him, “I Humphries Humphries, saying Deunte arrested without need lowed Humphries Rich- high you in a crime area of for minute.” warrant to talk mond, walking after a Virginia, Richmond not answer and continued did quick pace. the odor of ema- As Officer Venable away officer smelled after Humphries’ person pace got from to within 5 to nating picked up officer, away Humphries, Humphries walked from he smelled “the 10 feet stop questioning. ... disobeying strong coming orders odor of same time, person” that which [Humphries’] At the officer also had reason off of carrying a suspect Humphries upon exiting patrol that car. he had smelled Humphries weapon. concealed instructed walking continued stop, but not have Concluding that officer did quick away pace. at the same “probable Humphries, to arrest” up a sidewalk to suppressed the evidence As turned district court a house on the 3100 block approach fruit of arrest. Humphries’ seized as the Avenue, in- again Officer the fruit of an arrest Fifth violated Humphries to but Hum- stop, structed rights. argued Fourth Amendment He ignored and walked phries the order Venable did not Officer have began knocking quickly to the house and him, cause to arrest nor officer did the stopped at the door. Officer Venable on “reasonable, articulable, particular- have foot of the stairs to the house and suspicion” ized him. crime re- noted smell of Following a hearing mo- strong particularized mained to Hum- tion, the district court the evi- ordered After knocked several phries. suppressed. dence The court concluded times, a opened woman the door and Hum- although the information known to began to phries enter. certainly enough Officer Venable “was Humphries, Officer Venable then said to particularized him the give suspicion nec- Stop. it. Don’t the go “That’s in house.” essary stop the ques- defendant and to Humphries ignored com- Officer Venable’s allay him to suspicion tion the house, mand and walked into glancing the illegal defendant be involved in the back the officer. As Officer Venable or, possession perhaps remotely, doorway Hum- more the stepped the and saw kitchen, walk phries marijuana,” toward the Officer of distribution Humphries told under ar- Venable he was probable did not have rest. Officer Venable then went into the Humphries. The court under- apparently grabbed Humphries house and as he start- likely stood cause to mean “more round a ed to corner and the kitchen. enter than [more than] 50/50.” Officer As Venable took out- government appeal, The filed this chal- house, side the he the odor of smelled lenging ruling sup- court’s Humphries’ on breath. Officer the pressing evidence seized incident to patted Humphries Venable down and re- arrest. a 9mm handgun covered semi-automatic from the area where the officer had earlier Humphries pat seen his waist. After re- II covering weapon, Officer Venable con- government challenge The does not arrest, a full ducted search incident Rather, factual findings. district court’s

finding 26 tablets of in Hum- Percocet argues that actually based the facts jacket phries’ pocket and a small amount court, district found Officer of crack cocaine in pants pocket. cause to arrest Humphries was formally charged with and, incident to search him. possession of Percocet with intent to dis- Accordingly, government asserts that tribute, Percocet, simple possession pos- the district court in suppressing erred cocaine, of crack session possession evidence recovered inci- from the search drug a firearm furtherance of traffick- responds dent to the arrest. Humphries ing, §§ violation of U.S.C. that, law, simply by arguing as a 924(c). matter trial, § and 18 U.S.C. Before evidence inferences to be drawn filed motion to suppress drug handgun evidence therefrom insufficient seized incident to his establish arrest, contending that cause for his arrest.1 1. challenge phries standing, does not Officer Vena- lacks we treat therefore entry ble’s warrantless residence into the place. public his arrest as one made in a arrest, presumably make the Hum- because the application pre- is familiar. does not involve of a standard review

Our findings fact of historical legal While we review formula or common- cise test but the error, we review the deter only for clear and streetwise sense assessment de novo. probable cause mination of circumstances: factual States, 517 U.S. v. United Ornelas occasions, many have reiterated On we L.Ed.2d 911 699, 116 probable-cause standard is fact-finding, our deference practical, conception nontechnical give weight we “due to inferences also practical deals with the factual and con- judges facts drawn from those resident everyday life on which siderations Id. enforcement officers.” and local law men, prudent legal reasonable and inquiry begins technicians, legal The act. Amendment, provides which Fourth (internal quotation at 799 marks and Id. per in their people are “to secure omitted). defer- citations And as we show against ... unreasonable searches sons judge ence to inferences that a resident ... and shall no Warrants and seizures circumstances, draws from the factual we issue, probable cause.” U.S. but respect similar to the inferences show Const, This is made amend. IV. limitation by law officers on the drawn enforcement Four through the the applicable to States Ornelas, 799-800; 517 U.S. scene. Id. Colorado, v. 338 teenth Amendment. Wolf at 699. 25, 27-28, 1359, 69 93 L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. assessing the totality of (1949). the Fourth Amend Under 1782 circumstances, it consider appropriate is to cause, ment, by probable an supported if experi an specifically: practical officer’s a arrest of may officer make warrantless may ence and the inferences the officer public Maryland in a place. an individual Ornelas, — experience, from that see draw 795, -, 124 Pringle, v. S.Ct. 700, 116 or the 517 U.S. at S.Ct. 799,157 (2003); L.Ed.2d 769 States United area, v. high-crime of a see Illinois context 820, Watson, 411, 424,

v. 423 U.S. 96 S.Ct. Wardlow, 124, 673, 119, 120 S.Ct. (1976); Surdyka, 46 v. L.Ed.2d 598 Street (4th Cir.1974) (hold (2000); 145 L.Ed.2d 570 or an individual’s 368, 492 371-72 F.2d with presence high-crime coupled in a area be made ing that warrantless “[h]eadlong flight” noticing police, even the crime for public place if a misde id.; which the arrest was made was of or evasive conduct that falls short Lender, an officer’s meanor committed outside headlong flight, United States v. to presence). (4th “Probable sufficient cause” 151, Cir.1993); or even F.2d 154 985 cir requires an arrest “facts and justify “seemingly activity” placed innocent when knowledge cumstances within the officer’s surrounding circum in the context prudent are sufficient warrant a that 563, Lott, stances, v. 156 F.3d Porterfield caution, in person, or one reasonable Cir.1998). bottom, however, At 569 shown, believing, the circumstances “incapable is probable-cause standard committed, committing, suspect has is into or precise quantification definition or to commit an offense.” Michi is about probabil percentages because deals gan DeFillippo, 443 totality depends ities 2627, L.Ed.2d 343 61 at 800. Pringle, S.Ct. circumstances.” essence, question Stripped to its Determining the officer whether objectively an reason answered is whether into inquiry cause involves an has officer, in the circum placed able totality Pringle, circumstances. stances, ground for be- Moreover, had a “reasonable inquiry at 800. “particularized it, guilt” § lief of with intent to distribute id. 18.2-248.1. It respect person to be searched or carry is also a crime to weapon concealed seized.” Id. 18.2-308, permit, § without a id. or to possess possessing a firearm while more The facts found pound marijuana than one in- with the undisputed. court are The court found it, § tent to distribute id. 18.2-308.4. Venable and exited as Officers Carr high-crime their vehicle in a area of Rich repeatedly We have held the odor mond, “they [Humphries] pat observed marijuana provide probable alone can From away, waist area.” 20 feet the offi marijuana present believe that marijua cers detected the distinct odor of in particular place. In United States v. na, they continued to smell the mari Scheetz, (4th Cir.2002), juana they approached Humphries and example, we held that the smell of standing nearby. another man As the offi marijuana emanating properly from a near, Humphries cers drew “turned and stopped automobile constituted began away,” walk “Officer Venable believe that inwas him stop.” Humphries stop told did not vehicle, justifying Similarly, its search. away quick pace.” but walked at “a As Cephas, United States v. Officer Venable followed “between 5 and (4th Cir.2001), recognized we that the Humphries, 10 feet” behind continued strong smell of emanating from marijuana.” to smell “the distinct odor of open apartment door “almost certain- The district court found that Officer Vena ly” provided the officer with ble directed Humphries “on two cause to believe that pres- Humphries ignored occasions” but or ent in apartment. See also United ders. Humphries approached When a res Sifuentes, States v. 848 idence the 3100 block of Fifth Avenue Cir.1974) door, (holding and knocked on sight the “Officer officers’ of Venable stood at the foot of the stairs and still boxes a coupled inside van strong the marijuana smelled ... the odor of around marijuana odor of permitted seizure of the the defendant.” After was ad they view, boxes because in “plain woman, mitted into premises by the a Offi is, senses”). obvious to the While cer Venable him placed followed him smelling marijuana does not assure that under arrest. The district court recog marijuana present, is still the odor cer- nized that experi Officer Venable was an tainly provides probable cause to believe enced officer and “what he had at Thus, that it is. when is be- that time in front of him was the odor of present lieved to be in an automobile marijuana emanating from the defendant therefrom, based on the odor emanating at the distance of between 5 and 10 feet.” we have probable found cause to search facts, these undisputed

With legal automobile, the and when the odor of question presented is now whether Officer marijuana emanates from an apartment, probable cause to believe that we have found that there is “almost cer- committed, Humphries “ha[d] com- [was] tainly” probable cause to search the mitting, commit or about [was] an of- apartment. separate question, A of fense.” DeFillippo, 443 at 99 course, remains in these circumstances— S.Ct. 2627. exception whether an to the warrant re- quirement law, applies,

Under such as Virginia it is a the automobile crime to possess marijuana, exception § Va.Code Ann. Scheetz exigent 18.2- or the cir- 250.1, or possess marijuana with the cumstances in Cephas.

659 automatically probable constitute cause to cases these contends case all in the automobile or present persons arrest because inapposite are some factors would apartment; additional raises the issue inquiries that the present, indicating It is true have to be generally not to search. justify a search the facts persons possessed whether officer that those about they justify from whether are different 124 at Pringle, the contraband. See S.Ct. context, ques- In the search seizure. presence of co- (holding that 800-01 totality of circum- tion is whether money passenger in the caine and a roll a reason- to warrant stances is sufficient gave proba- officers area of an automobile contraband or to believe that person able that the automobile’s ble cause to believe found of a crime will be jointly committed the crime of occupants Ornelas, particular place. cocaine). Thus, if an officer possession Gates, Illinois S.Ct. marijuana in circum- the odor of smells 213, 238, 76 L.Ed.2d the officer can localize its stances where context, Whereas the officer has person, source to totality of the cir- question is whether person that the has com- cause to believe person to a reasonable cumstances indicate committing pos- the crime of mitted or is committed, is commit- has “suspect that a marijuana. session of De- a crime. or is about to commit” ting, case, Venable and Carr this Officers 37, 99 S.Ct. 2627. 443 U.S. at Fillippo, marijuana imme- strong odor of smelled cases, facts quantum of But in both car about diately upon exiting patrol their to search or for the officer required Humphries was Humphries. 20 feet from cause,” quantum and the “probable seize street, however, so not alone on the to constitute evidence needed to Hum- initially be tied odor could same. or a seizure is the cause for a search But when Officer Venable phries alone. LaFave, R. Search & Seizure Wayne Humphries quickly followed (3d 3.1(b) ed.1996); compare Pringle, § 10 feet away, getting to within 5 to walked (arrest context), with at 799-800 “the Humphries, he continued to smell Gates, 230-32, 103 S.Ct. 2317 462 U.S. at coming ... strong same odor (search context). also person.” off his the odor of While marijuana coming off the odor of smelled that cause to believe provides probable on the door of as he knocked Humphries of mari marijuana present, presence is to evade the that he entered the residence police juana not of itself authorize does officer. any arrest any place or to either to search credited Officer Vena- The district court factors vicinity. in Additional person testimony that testimony, and his ble’s presence localize the present must be marijuana Humphries followed odor jus placement that its will such particu- the street was sufficient down In the the search or the arrest. tify either Humphries’ odor to the source of the larize search, odor emanates when the case of Scheetz, at in person. Just as an auto a confined location such from marijuana emanat- 184, where the smell held that apartment, we have mobile or an proba- constituted ing from an automobile that mar may the conclusion officers draw present was ble cause to believe or the ijuana present in the automobile is marijuana ema- vehicle, in the odor Scheetz, 293 F.3d at See apartment. Humphries was sufficient nating from probable But Cephas, 254 F.3d at 495. probable Officer Venable provide marijuana is located cause to believe pres- marijuana was may not cause to believe apartment an in an automobile or person. Humphries’ provided Terry ent on And because Venable the basis for a Ohio, probable stop, Terry 1, had cause to be- see Officer Venable 88 S.Ct. 1868, Humphries presently possessing (1968), was lieve L.Ed.2d 889 court probable rejected marijuana, he had cause to arrest the claim that the circumstances possession. provided because, him the crime of probable as the stated, “probable court cause means more strengthen factors Other the conclusion likely than If the [more than] 50/50.” that Officer Venable had cause to court rested its ultimate sup- conclusion to Humphries. Officer Venable’s press the understanding, evidence on that probable-cause properly calculation consid- it erred. The Supreme Court has re- conduct, ered if evasive even it peatedly admonished that the standard for “headlong flight.” fell short of See Lend- “finely cause is not tuned” or er, Humphries 985 F.2d at 154. immedi- capable “precise quantifica- definition or away ately ap- walked as the officers tion percentages.” Pringle, into 124 S.Ct. run, proached, although he did not he Indeed, at 800. explicitly Court has away quick at a pace, ignoring walked admonished that the preponderance of the stop. ig- officer’s commands to He also standard, by understood the dis- nored the officer’s command to stop before in trict court apply, inappro- this case to he entered residence. Such evasive con- priate: suggest culpability duct would ato reason- Finely tuned proof standards such as able officer. beyond a pre- reasonable doubt or addition, police as the ap officers ponderance evidence, in useful car, proached patrol in their marked Hum- trials, formal place have no in [prob- waist, phries patted his which Officer Ven able-cause] decision. check,” interpreted “security able as a an Gates, 462 U.S. at instinctive check Humphries to see that quoted Pringle, in 124 S.Ct. at 800. Simi Also, weapon place. was in the entire larly, we have stated that probable- encounter with in place took cause standard does not require that the drug area known for trafficking. As an officer’s belief likely be more true than officer, experienced police Jones, false. United States v. properly considered these circumstances (4th Cir.1994). 1304, 1313 probable-cause calculation, because the Because Officer Venable had possibility increased was that Humphries believe carrying weapon an area possession marijuana, drug authority known for trafficking increased the to arrest him without possibility public a warrant in a possessing place. Watson, See at or other contraband. See Orne 820; Street, las, (“[A] S.Ct. 492 F.2d at 371-72. Ac- 116 S.Ct. 1657 cordingly, we reverse officer the district court’s draw inferences based suppressing order the evidence inci- experience his own in seized deciding whether dent to exists”); probable cause arrest and remand for see also Porter Lott, proceedings. further v. Cir. field 1998) (“[Wjhen it is light considered in the REVERSED AND REMANDED circumstances, of all surrounding ‘seemingly even activity’ may GREGORY, innocent pro Judge, concurring Circuit cause”). vide a for finding probable basis in judgment: While the district court concluded that I only judgment concur in the reached the circumstances that majority. confronted Officer Because the district to arrest Hum- not have cause that Officer Venable correctly found court however, contrary, To the phries. Hum- stop to suspicion reasonable had found that “there was an abundance Court him him, pat and to even phries, detain to information to allow Officer Venable arrest, was valid or down, whether detention, to investigative ques- an conduct nothing additional insofar as harmless defendant, pat to him perhaps this and tion Accordingly, we need thereby. gained safety.” Id. down for his majority’s opinion. in the holding reach II I determinations of We review major- in the the facts as stated Because suspicion de novo. and reasonable sufficient, I move will are ity’s opinion Harris, United States fact findings of directly to the ultimate (4th Cir.1994). court, reviewing A hearing After by the district court. made (1) however, review should take care to taking a and of counsel arguments only fact for clear findings of historical recess, court made brief short (2) error, weight to infer give to due from the bench. and ruled findings oral from those facts resident ences drawn acknowledged that Officer Vena- court The States, 517 judges. v. United Ornelas police officer who experienced “an ble was 690, 699, 116 134 L.Ed.2d this many times in front of has testified true “a trial This is because court also noted at 95. The J.A. Court.” particular the facts of a case judge views smelled that Officer Venable features and light of the distinctive at the dis- the defendant “emanating from community. Such back events of Be- 10 feet.” Id. context for the provide 5 and ground tance between facts facts, together and when seen historical court was dissatisfied cause the that deserve deference.” yield inferences suppres- during the “theory” offered sole Id. support to by the Government hearing sion id., arrest, Humphries seem- Officer clearly found that Of- court The district arrest, directly to formal ingly proceeded requisite had the reasonable ficer Venable “stead- because the Government Humphries. and detain suspicion place that there was fact,

fast found that “there In the district court arrest,” the district under to allow the defendant was an abundance of information investigative motion an understandably granted the to conduct court Officer defendant, so, detention, this doing question J.A. at 96. suppress. safety.”1 him down for perhaps pat did concluded that Officer Venable court ar incident to lawful id. at and search disagreed with the Gov- court 1. The district rest, Although the Government's id. at 25. theory that Officer Venable ernment's certainly been more arguments could have pos- Humphries for probable cause to arrest however, note, therefore not precise, district court was marijuana. session i.e., theory to one argued confined it also the Government's brief Perhaps possession offense. suppress that the misdemeanor opposition to the motion understood have better "investigative the district court "arrest” Indeed, arguments had the Govern the Government’s brief detention.” the Government's specifically the asserted argued theories ment raised several theo- the district court before briefs, devoting written instead in their justify pat-down, includ- the arrest ries holding argument oral activity considerable "criminal ing: cause that Jones, (4th id..; Cir. afoot,” v. United States pursuit, inves- J.A. at hot Ohio, 2000), distinguishable from this is which Terry v. tigatory detention under (1968), 1, 1868, case. 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 889 correctly Venable, the district court part Because found the of Officer hardly it was justified in stop misconduct. Officer Venable did not em- ping attempting stop, as it were— bark on a fishing expedition merely hoping —or him, detaining and that he turn up.” Brown v. “something might down, United States him patted could have Illinois, 590, 605, 2254, 95 S.Ct. Hamlin, 666, v. 671-72 Cir. (1975).2 45 L.Ed.2d 416 Unlike police 2003), fact that Officer Venable “ar Brown, supra, misconduct him patted rested” first and then him arrest was not effected for purpose was, bottom, down harmless. if Even obtaining evidence. illegal, nothing the arrest gained Accordingly, would sup- reverse the from the arrest other than that which pression ground order on the narrower properly pursuant could have been seized harmless arrest. pat-down investigative to the lawful Surely, seized, detention. evidence later lawfully

which could have been seized ear

lier, poisonous is not fruit of a tree when

the “tree” pat-down— itself—the poisonous

was never in the first instance. suppressing

When evidence as the fruit illegal of an guiding question WILLIAMS, Jesse J. Plaintiff- “whether, granting establishment of the Appellant, primary illegality, the evidence to which objection instant is made has been come at by exploitation illegality of that or instead STAPLES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a sufficiently distinguishable means to be Superstore Staples, The Office In- purged of taint.” Wong Sun primary corporated, Defendant-Appellee. States, v. United 471, 488, 407, (1963) (citation 9 L.Ed.2d 441 No. 03-1550. omitted) added). (emphasis case, In this United Appeals, States Court of “primary illegality.” And, there was no Fourth Circuit. pat-down was the that lead Officer Venable contraband; weapon there was Argued: Dec. 2003. no intervening police other action. More- Decided: June 2004. over, the purpose suppressing prevent is to similar misconduct on the

part police of the deny the future and to

them any benefit from such conduct. Al-

though might one envision different—

perhaps even better —course of action on Brown, Supreme

2. suppressed Amendment, Court reversed the under the Fourth Supreme per Illinois Court’s se rule that tree, poisonous as fruit due to improper confession that is otherwise under misconduct, i.e., where "the detectives em- Amendment, may Fifth suppressed not be expedition barked this for evidence in under the Fourth Amendment. 422 U.S. hope something might up turn [or 45 L.Ed.2d 416. The Court where the manner an] arrest was affected emphasized prophylactic purposes gives appearance having been calculat- Fourth Amendment voluntary and held that a surprise, fright, ed to cause and confusion." confession under the Fifth Amendment

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Deunte L. Humphries

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 17, 2004

Citation: 372 F.3d 653

Docket Number: 03-4567

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.