United States v. Lennie Earl Letsinger, (Two Cases)

LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. by published

Affirmed opinion. Judge LUTTIG wrote majority opinion, Judge which joined. NIEMEYER Judge HALL wrote a dissenting opinion.

OPINION

LUTTIG, Judge: Circuit Appellant, Lennie Letsinger, Earl chal- lenges grounds on two the denial of his mo- tion suppress evidence obtained connec- tion with possession his arrest with intent First, to distribute crack cocaine. argues that his consensual questioning was trans- into formed a seizure the movement of the train on which he and arresting officers Second, traveling. were he contends that his bag containing the cocaine which he wishes suppressed was at the seized time that the going announced to seize it, and, time, at that lacked reasonable suspicion to make such a seizure. We ulti- mately reject arguments, both and therefore judgment affirm the of the district court.

I.

The material in dispute. facts are not J.A. September 155-59. On force, members of drug a federal “Oper- task Railtail,” ation received information from Amtrak that purchased, cash, one-way train ticket New from York Rocky Mount, Carolina, North and had provided Amtrak a “bad” call number. back 134,155. J.A. Three officers board- the train ed at Union Station in Washington, D.C., looking Letsinger. The officers to Letsinger’s compartment went bag, I will be marijuana in the joint or an- some door, was no there but on knocked Hanson big trouble.” J.A. compart- enter not then They did swer. particularly they were responded and waited the train ment, left rather but marijuana, quantities in small When interested return. platform before. heard Letsinger said he had descrip- which Letsinger’s matching an individual Letsinger followed, why was if that was asked train, Hanson tion boarded in marijuana his nervous, had he because the door of his so they knocked and when “yes.” at J.A. Letsinger said time, Letsinger bag, an- and a second compartment Letsinger hearing had 109, Upon that 137. themselves identified police The swered. Letsing- bag, Hanson asked marijuana in his speak with they could Letsinger if asked and J.A. at 72, 135, compartment. step at er to out J.A. agreed. him, Letsinger and stepped into the 77, then hallway Hanson 137-38. in the remained The officers 156. bag, and Letsinger’s searched doorway compartment, to his in the Letsinger stood and (but 2,969.46 cocaine no grams of crack took found questioning while compartment 73, marijuana). at 158. at J.A. bag. J.A. to his blocking access place, “busi- was on a said he 101, Letsinger 135. and, following the Letsinger arrested was Rocky in Mount trip would and ness” suppress the evidence motion to denial of his 73, 135, 156. About a days.” at J.A. “a few possession guilty to bag, pleaded in his found agents de- questioning, into the minute right distribute, his preserving to with intent train, delay the conductor to to ask the cided sup- motion to of his appeal the denial to so, depart- the train but, they could do before to 188 months then sentenced press. He was Continuing question to ed Union Station. appeal this followed. prison, his identifica- agents asked for Letsinger, the “very nervous” and Letsinger became tion. II. wallet, taking three or through his “fumbled” A. J.A. his identification. to remove four tries 74,100,136,156. at that, Letsinger argues first because free to person would feel leave if Letsinger he had no reasonable asked then agents train, conversation consensual moving his that he had one replied and he any luggage, began train to they search the became seizure if could bag. They asked on board officers remained this, why he move and the Letsinger asked had bag. At holding in Florida him. The questioning and whether he questioning picked for been 2382, 436, Bostick, search, and Detective Ed to let them had (1991), dispositive of 2387, 115 your L.Ed.2d 389 only ask for “we can replied, Hanson Letsinger claim: 136. this at cooperation.” J.A. papers” “personal he had

responded that defendant] did [the fact that mere [T]he Darley George said bag, Detective bus does not leave the feel free to not papers. interested At they that him. police [The were seized mean that that, Letsinger said to point, that Hanson a bus that passenger on was a defendant] had, they they were the information based on He would not depart. was scheduled retrieve it bag, he could his going to detain if bus even felt to leave the free “free to do what- later, he was and otherwise defen- present. [The police not been 76, 104, 108, at J.A. to do.” ever he wanted were “confined” dant’s] movements sense, result of his but this was natural bus; says nothing take decision to that the of- Notwithstanding statement his conduct at police or not the about whether bag, to detain going ficers were was issue coercive. any however, of the offi- Hanson nor neither repeatedly told Additionally, was luggage. J.A. steps toward the any cers took “cooper- only being for his asked that he was Instead, to talk with they continued at 137. do whatever he was “free again ation” that asking him if bag, Letsinger about 76; wanted,” district court as the J.A. bag. he To them to search he would allow ... Letsinger indicate found, “at time did you “if find a Letsinger replied, request, this conversation, he wanted to that end the seizure, ver- circumstance of and assuming ar- bally actions,” or through guendo J.A. at 136. pursuit at issue there D., constituted a “show of authority,” Hodari

B. S.Ct. at that, the Court held “since argues Hodari did bag next that his comply” with that “show of authority,” was seized at the time that an tackled,” was not seized is, “until he it; nounced was going to detain touched, until he that, time, physically id. at lacked reasonable 111 S.Ct. at 1552. suspicion support bag; detention of the and, therefore, illegally course, Hodari specifically ad- seized, requiring suppression of the cocaine. dressed the persons, seizure of id. at 627 n. follow, For reject the reasons that this 3, 111 However, S.Ct. at 1551 n. 3. light contention, as well. the evolving of Court’s on views the relevan- of cy common in defining law Fourth Amend- “From the founding of the time to the “seizures,” .ment plausible it is at least present, the word ‘seizure’ has a ‘tak- meant either or both of Hodari exceptions 25.’stwo ing possession’ ... purposes [and] [f]or most general to the common requirement law law, of at common word the not mere- connoted custody actual physical for seizure —a touch- ly grasping, to, applying physical or force the ing without control or a complied-with show object animate or question, inanimate but authority may of ultimately be held to ex- actually bringing physical it within control.” — objects to tend persons. as well as D., 621, 624, v. Hodari 499 U.S. California 1547, 1549-50, 111 S.Ct. 113 Qn L.Ed.2d 690 hand, the one noted, as Hodari D. itself (1991) (citations omitted). Under this defini- common law seizure of objects, inanimate like “seizure,” tion of obviously common law seizure of even most animate upon was not seized the officers’ mere an- objects, only upon occurred the exercise of nouncement, because the law re- common physical object. control the over See Pelham quired custody. actual But the common law Rose, (9 Wall.) v. 103, 106, 76 U.S. 19 L.Ed. may not necessarily end our inquiry. (1869) (“[B]y 602 the seizure thing of a is meant thing of a taking possession, into In Hodari addressing whether a “ which, the manner of and whether actual or suspect fleeing police from ‘seized’ constructive, depending upon the nature of meaning within the of the Fourth Amend- thing applied subjects seized. As to ca by ment” virtue police pursuit, id. at pable of manual delivery, the term means 623, 1548, 111 S.Ct. at Supreme Court caption; the physical taking custody.”). into identified two per- circumstances in which a There was no “mere touch” exception to this son can be though “seized” even he is not rule, general arrest, as there was for an “the actually brought under control. quintessential person,’” of ‘seizure 499 First, the Court person concluded that a 624, at Likewise, U.S. 111 at 1550 . S.Ct. “seized” if by he is touched officer concept through of seizure a “show of author authority with lawful purpose arrest, to ity,” Terry as in and United v. States Men if person even is not subdued. In so denhall, 446 1870, U.S. S.Ct. 100 concluding, the recognized, Court and indeed 1876-77, (1980), 64 L.Ed.2d 497 has never created, to 2, extent some id. at n. 111 626 expressly objects. been extended to 2, at exception S.Ct. 1550 n. general an to the requiring common law But, “‘taking hand, actual on the other Court Unit- ” possession,’ 624, [of] id. at Jacobsen, 111 109, ed States v. 466 U.S. 113 & n. Second, following 5, 1549-50. its 3, decision in 1652, 104 S.Ct. 1656 & n. L.Ed.2d 80 85 Ohio, Terry 1, v. 16, 392 (1984), U.S. 19 n. 88 S.Ct. expressly stated that the definition of 1868, 16, (1968), 1879 n. 20 L.Ed.2d 889 object the seizure of “meaningful an as a also Court concluded that a person is interference ... possessory with [a] inter- “seized” under the Fourth upon Amendment directly ]” follows from parallel defi- est the submission of person to an official nition of person, of a seizure and it cited authority.” “show of Focusing observation, alia, on this latter for this Terry’s inter defi- 144 393, 342 949, 126 L.Ed.2d 114 S.Ct. U.S. as a restraint person aof seizure

nition of the appli- (1993)). various light of Court’s of or show force “physical through liberty means test, Place, we are this of cations authority.” Cf. 2641-42, here consti- actions the officers’ certain 103 S.Ct. authority. The (1983) (extending completed show tuted L.Ed.2d corridor, and train’s justification in the remained suspicion” “articulable Terry’s Bostick, guns. See suspect’s their from never drew personalty the seizure (“[A] holding fact[ ] custody and control immediate ... at no investiga- noting[:] worth applicable particularly limitations ... that “the [defendant] define should threaten person time did detentions tive investigative de- simple statement scope of an gun.”). Their permissible bag” than luggage on less “going to detain person’s tention casual, yields cause”). And, suspect ongoing, during once a an calmly uttered probable authority phrased over It was show an officer’s conversation. consensual custody control bag,” or suspect’s “order,” your e.g., “give me object within as an object), sentence, touches an (or an officer declarative present-tense once even as a even in- possessory See, suspect’s e.g., hereby that the arguable bag seized.” e.g., “your is is “meaningfully interfered” 554, Mendenhall, been at at 100 S.Ct. terests have U.S. 446 justify conclu- degree to a language or to a of with sufficient that “use (explaining 1877 Indeed, seized. object has been with compliance that the indicating sion that of voice tone coercive, asser- official a response to compelled” in direct is might request be officer’s the object, has he to the of entitlement person tion would to whether reasonable relevant alto- interests possessory leave). his surrendered More- free to was believed he have gether. they going over, stating were that even after made no bag, the Letsinger’s officers seize however, to today, decide not need We Instead, they bag. the toward movement apply to exceptions two D.’s Hodari whether Letsinger’s consent to to seek continued immediate objects one’s from of the seizure continued to Letsinger bag, and the because, assuming search control, even custody or way suggested in a that the officers that, engage the under do, they we are satisfied believed the the officers he nor bag that neither us, Letsinger’s was before circumstances completed a constituted statement actually took it officers’ until the officers not seized in authority. the Court Given that of show possession. physical into their speed a full hold that D. did even Hodari not touched officers the no claim that There is necessarily of a show au- police pursuit was bag until to the force any physical applied 625, 629, 111 S.Ct. at thority, 499 at U.S. of possession they actually took 1552, 1550, possible that this una- quite it is only Thus, can maintain suitcase. statement, in which it in the context dorned that he statement Hanson’s that Detective made, a show of au- constitute did not was 76,104, bag,” J.A. at going “was to detain thority either. authority to sufficient of a show constituted seizure. a Amendment effect Fourth the assuming that officers’ But even complet a collectively constituted statements of author for a show general test authority under Mendenhall of ed show all the circum of ity “‘in view is whether D., authority only a is a of incident, Hodari show reason surrounding the stances sufficient, condition “necessary, ... not was he believed that person able would 628, D., at 111 499 U.S. Hodari requests or seizure.” officers’ the [“decline not free to ” addition, suspect the at 1551-52. Ho S.Ct. encounter”].’ terminate the otherwise authority in that show to 628, must submit at 1551 at dari U.S. 499 according to a “seizure” 554, for there to be Mendenhall, 100 at order 446 (quoting in “yelling ‘Stop the as eases. 1877) from Just those in brackets (language S.Ct. fleeing form that at a name law!’ Bostick, 2388- 111 S.Ct. at seizure,” 499 U.S. at flee” is “no to McFarley, 991 continues 89; see United States also yelling “I also denied, so 111 (4th S.Ct. at Cir.), cert. F.2d your suspect seize suitcase!” at a who Having concluded, does assumption the relinquish not control is “no seizure.” It was possible for a authority show of to effect law, at common perceive not and we no rea- object, seizure of an that Hodari D. re- why today. son it should be quires that there be a submission to that authority, show of we do attempt not here to recognize We that in Supreme Place the define the full contours of required Court, sub- in passing, in stated dictum that the mission. very least, At however, seizure occurred when the officer “told” the believe that suspect must clearly suspect, here, ac- that “he going was to take quiesce to the officer’s show of authority over luggage,” [his] 462 U.S. at object suspect’s possession. Here, in McFarley our circuit similarly acquiesce did not to stated that the voluntariness officers’ McFarley’s statement going were to actions was retain broken officers there “an- bag. time, At the bags nounc[ed]” officers going standing were were to detained, train, the corridor of the 991 F.2d at 1192. But in neither in Letsinger’s compartment, McFarley Place nor largely was the out of distinction be- sight. Letsinger an standing tween announced intention to seize and the door- way the actual between the taking object possession bag. into and the Let- singer at all did relevant. Neither case hand the bag. officers the concerned a He suspect step yield who to did out of way failed to a show of to allow them authority; cases, access to suspect yielded bag. both Nor did he verbally even and the officers possession took assent their Instead, detention of it. bags immediately try announcing after continued to dissuade yet so, going again to do from nothing taking bag, attempt which, import constitutional occurring noted, in the as we inter- the appeared officers Place, 699, im. See receptive. 462 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at 2640, McFarley, F.2d at 991 1190-91. And that, We therefore hold assuming that a in both Place McFarley and bag the was eomplied-with authority show of can consti- easily within officers; here, reach the the tute a object “seizure” of an from one’s im- doorway defendant stood in the directly be- custody control, mediate or Letsinger’s bag the hallway tween officers in the bag and the only was seized when the physically officers in compartment. Moreover, Place was possession it, took because Letsinger did eight years I)., decided before Hodari and not submit to the officers’ earlier announced McFarley did not discuss D. Hodari at all. intention to bag. seize the We therefore consider the relevant most analysis to be that in only Hodari one Because the seizure of Letsinger’s bag did consider, these cases to or even to have not occur until actually took it, precise question before of whether a physical possession bag, of the and when upon seizure announcement, occurs its mere they merely announced their intention to do upon subsequent a yielding, or upon ap- so, Letsinger’s argument they that lacked plication person force to the suspicion reasonable point at the of seizure is object. of little moment.* Between the time when * Letsinger claims that the officers lacked reason- traveling to conceal that he was with his com- suspicion able they when Sokolow, announced their inten- panion), with United States v. 490 U.S. bag. 1, 3, tion to seize point, they 1581, At 1583, that knew he (1989) 109 S.Ct. 104 1 L.Ed.2d (1) ticket, purchased (2) cash, had one-way a (holding suspicion that reasonable did exist (3) (New York), city (4) from a source giving a purchased where defendant airline tickets in number, (5) cash, call-back claiming bad stay- cash, he was carrying $4000 gave the air- ing “on business” only in North a Carolina few seemingly line a false name number, telephone and false (6) days, appeared and very “nervous” and drug traveled a city, from known source “fumbling” police Miami, when the hours, stayed confronted him. nervous, only appeared 48 Compare 438, Georgia, 441, Reid v. 448 U.S. 100 luggage). and checked no Because we hold that 2752, 2754, (1980) S.Ct. 65 L.Ed.2d (per 890 officers had seized neither nor his curiam) (holding suspicion that reasonable did they announced their intention to seize latter, not exist where city, drug arrived defendant source need not consider whether early morning, without luggage, and possessed tried suspicion at reasonable time.

146 1662, 1657, -, 134 -, 116 S.Ct. going U.S. they were announced officers (1996). they L.Ed.2d 911 time when bag and to seize (as voluntarily it, Letsinger actually seize did II. found, at J.A. expressly court the district carrying mari- he was 140) may announced property personal or his person A course, point, of moment, At that bag. detained, juana in his a forcibly even (even greater cause probable suspicion. agents articulable .a reasonable without need- suspicion 491, 498, 103 reasonable S.Ct. Royer, than the 460 U.S. v. Florida Place, ed) bag. (1983); 462 229 to seize L.Ed.2d 75 However, so 706, at 2644. 103 S.Ct. district judgment of the Accordingly, off an break person is free to long as the court affirmed. his busi go about police and encounter AFFIRMED. seizure, though ness, is no even there See, e.g., may good a while. last encounter dissenting: Judge, HALL, Circuit K.K. McFarley, 991 F.2d 1188 v. States United 949, denied, (4th Cir.), 510 U.S. cert. Lennie Let- dissent. respectfully I must (1993) (twenty- 393, L.Ed.2d 342 who seized luggage singer’s and suspect while conversation minute war- facts and articulable “specific lacked seizure). a was not along street walked con- [it] belief ranting reasonable luggage is of course aof traveler’s Detention Place, narcotics.” tain[ed] seizure, Fourth implicates his 103 S.Ct. 462 U.S. degree rights to the same Amendment (1983). va- therefore would I L.Ed.2d 110 at 1192. An person. Id. of his seizure with instruc- remand his conviction cate officers’ intent detain nouncement in that found the evidence suppress tions id., seizure, at that because is the luggage luggage. liberty to unrestricted point the traveler’s go unimpeded the encounter call off I. Place, ends. about his business (seizure luggage majority’s with the quarrel broad I have no in possessory just not traveler’s implicates facts, sup- a I do have few but recitation infringes per on belongings; it in his terest plements: itinerary). by disrupting his liberty sonal hearing, (1) Detective suppression At the language majority its Though dismisses suspects are nervous Hanson testified dictum, emp was the Place mere Court than “more often them interviews point: this on hatic “typi- Letsinger’s demeanor was not,” and agents that the made doubt There cal.” when, luggage Place’s follow- a “seizure” why he had (2) Letsinger asked When search, to a to consent ing his refusal investigation, Hanson for singled out been going to that he take agent was told Place they had “reasons.” cryptically that replied judge to secure a federal luggage to of a issuance warrant. hallway in (3) testified Hanson twenty (emphasis only to at 2645 add- was 103 S.Ct. stood which the officers Id. ed). govern of not passage if does Even this twenty-five inches wide. in force, circuit law made it into own its amount (4) know the did not The officers McFarley at 1192. The McFarley, 991 F.2d paid for ticket. of cash court, panel of this us as a holding does bind (5) know the did not call-back The officers applied here. ought it to and be Amtrak, who recorded by number recorded McFarley distinguish majority would correctly. it, it recorded or whether import” of “constitutional here fact because of the between the announcement my occurred to facts inform additional With these namely, and its seizure legal issues. Review analysis, turn to I execution— — marijuana might States, Letsinger’s statement is de novo. Ornelas v. argument bag. This Finally, what assumes I point should out that Letsinger prove. it seeks to If the voluntariness of the had no escape. avenue of He was standing already encounter was Place broken —as and doorway tiny of a sleeping compart say McFarley Letsinger’s actions in ment on moving train. Three was— authority the face of the claim of lawful stood hallway narrow in front of him. retroactively cannot validate that claim. Though cramped quarters moving Cf. York, 40, 63, v. New Sibron 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. train do not effect a ipsis factis, seizure 1889, 1902-03, (1968) (search 20 L.Ed.2d 917 Bostick, Florida v. 429, 435-436, 501 U.S. part “incident to” arrest could not serve as 2382, 2386-87, (1991), L.Ed.2d 389 justification); arrest’s Bumper v. North they are definitely most relevant circum Carolina, 391 U.S. 88 S.Ct. stances. Id. at 111 S.Ct. at 2387- (1968) (“consent” 20 L.Ed.2d 797 Letsinger’s luggage was seized before illegal search that authority followed claim of he made his self-incriminating statements. Wilson, was not voluntary); United (4th Cir.1991) (“Of course, 953 F.2d III. police may rely or observa- events subsequent tions to the commencement of Because I would hold argument the seizure to bolster seized, I must address whether the offi- suspicion.”). had reasonable possessed cers specific and articulable facts distinction, As support further for its that would warrant a reasonable belief that it majority relies on v. Hodari California would contain contraband.2 I will address 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 the various “facts” relied on by govern- (1991), a decision quite correctly that it any physical obstacle in the way, anywhere officers’ Likewise, he else.3 urbanites are See, Wilson, has submitted. e.g., 953 likely F.2d at rely more transportation on mass all, 122-123. After majority as the empha- than their rural or suburban fellow citizens. sizes, the essence of a seizure is generally Probably the passengers of Letsing- dozens taking physical of possession; likewise, York, er’s train were from New but essence of generally submission is the ab- officers came suspicion to see him. Their of sence resistance. truly must have something rested on else. majority 1. The vast room, of Hodari D. cases involve lent of a hotel in which an individual has a flight, though a suspect, few occur a where strong privacy, California, interest in see Stoner v. though immobile, physically is able to fend off 889, 893-94, 11 capture. Atlanta, E.g., City Menuel 25 F.3d (1964), of L.Ed.2d 856 but it is nearer much that (11th 1994) (subject trapped 995 Cir. in sur public airport than a concourse a seat or on the gunfire). house rounded with resisted bus. accept 2. purposes argument I for of that the census, 3.According Terry nearly to the 1990 suspicion” basic three ap- "reasonable test /Place here, (7,322,564 percent 248,709,873) plies insignificant but I of it not think that na- population officers would seize an item tion's never lives in New had even It is over York. Letsinger's private compart- large seen from competitor, inside twice Ange- as its closest as Los compartment may equiva- (3,485,557). ment. This not be les 148 104 Sokolow, 109 S.Ct. of law-abid- Millions wonder. And small Sokolow, (1989). In L.Ed.2d are from Americans crime-fearing

ing and he had knew that defendant stopped who travel there others City. Countless York New from tickets airline round-trip purchased or lawful pleasure through there4 $2,100, bills all in $20 to Miami corrupts Honolulu neither experience business, and the (105 count), these from peeled had by my and specif- No their souls. taints nor their blood large. Id. at twice as a wad warranting reasonable a ic, basis articulable Supreme Court concluded 1583-84. luggage contained Letsinger’s belief that gleaned could be suspicion boarding reasonable some from his gleaned be can contraband 8-9, 109 S.Ct. Id. at actions. from Sokolow’s New York. train in case, simply the In this have at 1585-86. cash, paid and Letsinger Tender ii.Legal fact that unadorned the elitist to embrace willing are unless we cash is one-way ticket with a Paying for (not proposition misguided) to mention (if suspicious “suspicious” nearly so ticket, any pays for citizen every upstanding a transportation is all) of mode where card, we cannot credit cheap, with a however bus) First airplane.5 (or rather than train wrongdoing to it.7 any hint impute of cheaper generally are all, tickets of train per- tickets, trains attract and airline than Trembling and iii.Fear “Poverty is means. economic sons of lower nervous, admit- confoundedly but Hanson man, Letsinger it is but to a disgrace nervous get interviews persons in- he of these confounded ted One inconvenient.”6 not,” ner- on cash. than dependence “more often is a conveniences course, the more “typical.” air travel Of vein, expense of vousness the same behavior, “suspicious” it carefully, less plan trips “typical” passengers prompts indeed a rare higher proportion suspect of that it is citizen I expect is. so one would he is quicken round-trip. pulse does whose to be plane tickets three confronted Let- ascribed to Here, “suspiciousness” door. currency of of singer’s use greatly is for a debt legal tender States Us iv.Don’t Call any of of details by the lack attenuated number Lastly, the “bad” call-back there is luggage had seized agents who use. The may given Amtrak.8 used —and cash much no idea how “suspicious,” perhaps the most point is anything This appeal of told on we are not —or Letsingei was is not clear. of what so compare this but Now that cash. peculiar about attempting to alias or traveling under an v. not with United information vacuum of Wisdom, Smith, quot- Sydney Wit and According His example. 6. Rev. is an Letsinger himself Dictionary Penguin Quotations ed in The (J.M. mother and of his affidavits the uncontradicted sister, eds.1960). Cohen & M.J. in suburban lives is an accountant train in the Amtrak Long He boarded Island. live, purehearted still lots I there are 7. Where is. where terminal because that Manhattan account, checking let have never folks who drags, but it is may a “source” New York suspi- suppose they are card. I alone a credit traveling persons transportation hub for also a finance, high world cious banks else. somewhere else to from somewhere last suspicions of the student which are history could not of American seven decades by Judge entirely groundless. Senior point was made insightful deem 5. This opinion v. panel States United Phillips only given” wit- say “may because 8. I Cir.1995). (4th Torres, The F.3d hearing, suppression testified at ness who grant- vacated panel later opinion Hanson, num- did know call-back Officer banc; ultimately, we affirmed rehearing en ed it, ber, it recorded whether was recorded who by equally divided judgment of conviction passenger had trans- correctly. Amtrak's list Torres, (4th 77 F.3d 91 v. court. United (rendering Letsinger's posed letters of name two banc). rely Cir.1996) (en Though can one transposition error “Lestinger"), a similar logic find the precedent, nonetheless I Torres for telephone possible num- certainly as to his right. own panel opinion persuasive in its ber. anything conceal about himself. What ad-

vantage giving he would have derived from unexplained. number to Amtrak

“bad” E ... Pluribus v. remains, however, question whether cash, city,” these factors —the “source one- ticket, way nerves, wrong number —can collectively weight bear the that each falls so view, bearing my short of alone. most, they support only cannot.9 At an “in- unparticularized choate and suspicion or ” ‘hunch,’ Terry, 88 S.Ct. at woefully inadequate objec- and are tive indicators of criminal conduct to assure pursue innocent can happi- Americans

ness without the unreasonable interference of is, all, police, which after their cherished right.

I dissent. BEDRICK, through Ethan L. Litem; Stephanie Guardian ad W. HUM RICKHOUSE, Litem; as Guardian ad Bedrick;

Richard E. Patricia W. Be drick, Plaintiffs-Appellants, COMPANY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-2448. Appeals, States Court of Fourth Circuit. Argued July 1996. Aug. Decided See, e.g., Georgia, Reid similarly where innocuous "facts” were deemed (1980) curiam), (per 65 L.Ed.2d suspicion. insufficient to establish reasonable notes inment turn. is not McFarley. mentioned in I might add that Hodari D. is not mentioned the briefs i. From the Source parties either, and for good reason: Letsinger did not flee or otherwise resist1 know, As we all now York New is a these officers. Hodari D. is inapposite. thus city” drugs, “source though this “fact” my view, says majority nothing any only applies particular about New York- context, D. Hodari It city” outside its but er. is also a bagels also misin- “source terprets stockbrokers, the Court’s idea of I “submission” doubt the officers came authority. The person seizure of a or seeking lunch or investment property rarely makes him happy. may He advice. New York is far the nation’s scream, curse, beg, cajole, connive, or largest city, if but so an picked American at ran- run, hide, he does not pull gun, place likely dom is more to be from there than

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Lennie Earl Letsinger, (Two Cases)

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 22, 1996

Citation: 93 F.3d 140

Docket Number: 95-5007, 95-5198

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.