United States v. Luqman

three every day other amphetamine referred to Wren Barrandey also

months. testi- Though man. right hand was Barran-

mony indicate Wren might the close conspiracy, in the

dey’s inferior they indicate that

relationship could also clearly It was therefore equals. that Wren to determine

erroneous in his offense

undeserving of a decrease in the particular participation

level for his

conspiracy.

AFFIRMED. America, STATES of

UNITED

Plaintiff-Appellee, LUQMAN, Thomas

Abdus Salaam a/k/a Mack, Defendant-Appellant.

A. 06-3943.

No. Appeals, States Court

United

Sixth Circuit.

Argued: Jan. 2008. 8, 2008. April

Decided and Filed: Bryan,

ARGUED: Edward G. Federal Office, Cleveland, Ohio, Public Defender’s Bauer, Appellant. for M. Thomas Assis- Akron, Ohio, Attorney, tant United States Appellee. for ON BRIEF: Edward G. Office, Bryan, Federal Public Defender’s Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Thomas Bauer, M. Assistant United States Attor- Akron, Ohio, ney, Appellee. for SILER, CLAY, COOK, Before Judges. Circuit SILER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, COOK, J., CLAY, joined. which 618-23), (pp. J. a separate delivered dissenting opinion.

OPINION SILER, Judge. Circuit Two officers Defendant Abdus Luqman’s pickup Salaam truck when suspected Luqman the officers soliciting prostitution. questioning After Luqman’s officers verified license, driver’s suspended. which was officers then arrested for driving suspended with a license and con- routine, pre-tow inventory ducted a truck, when the officers found a handgun. Luqman concealed in- was later dicted possession of a firearm convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court denied parked, not but rather the travel lane the firearm. suppress motion engine running. its Donohue be con- with subsequent his appeals now prostitutes2 lieved that the women were viction, officers did that the arguing soliciting truck and the driver of the have reasonable truck on the As the was prostitution. truck. that of the opposite side of the street from reasons, we AFFIRM. following the For car, Donohue made a U-turn. As patrol so, truck did the woman ran3 from the he AND PROCEDURAL FACTUAL to the The truck then be back sidewalk. BACKGROUND move, pulled pa to and Donohue the gan 2005, offi two Akron August the truck. trol car behind Falcone, cers, Angela Donohue and James Donohue asked stopped, After the truck Hill area. city’s North patrolling doing neigh- in the Luqman what he was members officers were seasoned The borhood, Luqman responded that to which force; had and Falcon Donohue looking for a friend. Donohue he years, nine and six Akron for patrolled prostitu- Luqman soliciting if he was asked spent two Donohue had also respectively. tion, that he was not. Luqman replied and working police department’s in the months Luqman for his driv- Donohue then asked unit, investigating prosti undercover vice Donohue verified the license er’s license. client, “John,” potential or a tution as Luqman. the driver as The and identified According to Dono Hill area. the North license, however, suspended, upon and hue, prostitution Hill was a known North this, the officers arrested learning area.1 driving suspended for with a license. p.m. August 11:40 on approximately At reg- Following police department Akron 2005, African- Donohue noticed two ulations, in- pre-tow conducted a Falcone standing on a street cor- American women truck and found a ventory Hill; Falcone did not see the in North ner po- handgun under the driver’s seat. women, comput- at the looking as she was charged Luqman with lice officers then patrol car. As the patrol er screen carrying weapon. concealed a street, Donohue no- up the proceeded court, Luq- the women left the street After indictment federal ticed that one of suppress the arrest pickup truck driven man filed a motion to approach corner to search, that the officers approximately arguing by Luqman. The truck was sus- requisite reasonable corner when did not have twenty yards from the street him. court de- The district picion The truck was approached. the woman suggests the sus- that because conceded 2. The dissent says the Government 1.The dissent provoca- “high pected prostitutes were not dressed argument that North Hill is not area,” ap- tively, they present the outward did not Donohue it was a but said However, area,” prostitute. Donohue pearance six evidenced “known experience most of the that in his year. language testified This is similar arrests one dress prostitutes in Akron did not he observed by our court in United States to the conclusion but, instead, likely to Green, provocatively, are most Fed.Appx. 855 Cir. 157 jeans or a T-shirt. wear and a sweatshirt 2005): Sharp ... ... saw a woman “Officer passenger a car leaning side of close drug distinguishes this case from had in an area known The dissent 3. Fed.Appx. where the sus- trafficking prostitution.” informa Such 157 abruptly,” investigating but Donohue pected prostitute "left have come from tion must case, suspected prostitute in this opinion that the although testified in that officers away the truck. “ran” from say case does not so. 616

nied the motion. ment “supported by was found officers’ actions are guilty, and the district court later sen- reasonable believe crimi ” him to a 180-month imprisonment tenced activity ‘may nal be afoot.’ (citing term. Sokolow, 1, 7, United States v. 490 U.S. (1989)). 1581, 104 1 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d STANDARDS OF REVIEW bright-line There is not a rule to grant As a or denial of motion determine whether an officer had reason suppress question is a mixed of fact and Ellis, suspicion. able 497 F.3d at 612. law, we review district court’s decision Instead, totality we look to the of the under two standards. United States surrounding circumstances to de (6th Cir.2007). Ellis, 497 F.3d “particu termine whether the officer had a appeal, “On review the district court’s we objective suspecting larized and basis” for findings of fact for clear error and its activity. criminal Id. at (quoting 613 Arvi (citing conclusions of law de novo.” Id. zu, 744). 266, 122 534 U.S. at S.Ct. In Dillard, 675, v. United States 438 F.3d 680 evaluating totality of the circum (6th Cir.2006)). stances, we will not look at each factor leading rather, stop individually; to the we DISCUSSION examine the factors as whole. Id. at 614 gives The defense us no ques- reason to (“A totality analysis of circumstances interpretation tion the district court’s of prohibits discounting us from fac certain case, the facts nor can one find such because, merely tors separately, they could such, independently. As adopt basis we potentially explana have ‘an innocent the facts as found the district court and ” Arvizu, 267, tion.’ (quoting 534 at U.S. turn question to the sole of whether the 744)). 122 give S.Ct. also weight” We “due justified officers were in stopping Luqman. inferences, to the officers’ factual as their Martin, 392, See v. United States 289 F.3d specialized training experiences allow (6th Cir.2002) (noting 396 that this court them to draw “inferences from and deduc accepts findings the factual of the district tions about the cumulative information court findings clearly unless those are er- available to that ‘might [them] well elude roneous). ” person.’ untrained United States The Fourth Amendment forbids Marxen, (6th 326, 410 F.3d 331-32 Cir. law enforcement from making officers un 2005) Arvizu, (quoting 273, 534 U.S. at 122 seizures, reasonable searches and “and its 744). S.Ct. protections extend investigatory to brief two-part We also utilize a test stops persons of or that fall short vehicles legitimacy investigato determine the of an of traditional arrest.” United States v. First, ry stop. we must determine if there Arvizu, 266, 273, 534 U.S. 122 S.Ct. proper was a to stop Luqman basis based (2002) 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (citing Terry v. on specific officers’ of awareness Ohio, 1, 9, 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. 20 that give articulable facts rise to rea (1968)) (holding L.Ed.2d 889 that a stop Martin, sonable suspicion. 289 at F.3d was constitutional after Border Patrol Garza, (quoting 397 United States v. 10 agents van, observed defendant’s crowded (6th Cir.1993)). Second, F.3d 1245 type smuggling illegal used for im we evaluate migrants, Arizona, degree in a “whether the of intru remote area of day suspect’s sion into the illegal usually personal security time entries are attempted). reasonably The Fourth in scope Amendment’s related to the protections hand, are if satisfied the law enforce- judged by situation which is ex-

617 cites, of the officials’ tion of that he and in amining the reasonableness given suspicions But, their sur- respect may conduct he be correct. rounding circumstances.” noted, we have fact that the officers “[T]he present in the case did not have the same Here, looking totality degree illegal prostitution surrounding circumstances Donohue’s activity occurring as the officers in the officer had reason had does not mean that [another case] stop Luqman for solicita able they suspicion.” lacked reasonable Mar- First, prostitution. the officers tion of tin, 289 F.3d at 399. area, a known patrolling patterns the criminal an area and while Further, nearly in a case identical to this justify stop, they not alone are a will one, we held that the officers did factor that law enforcement can consider. requisite have the reasonable suspicion to Wardlow, 119, 124, 528 U.S. See Illinois stop the defendant. United States v. (2000) 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 Fed.Appx. Cir. (“[OJfficers required ignore are not 2005) decision), (unpublished an officer was relevant characteristics of a location de patrolling an area known for drug traffick are termining whether the circumstances ing and and noticed a woman sufficiently suspicious to warrant further leaning passenger close to the side of a car investigation.”). Taking this location into that was Id. stopped. ap As the officer consideration, with pre and combined his vehicle, proached the the woman “left experience, suspected vious vice Donohue began and the car to move for prostitutes abruptly” the two women were when he standing saw them on the street corner quickly pulled ward. Id. The car then off Hill, and then one of the North saw wom the road and onto the sidewalk. Id. From approaching suspicions en a truck. His facts, these that the officer concluded the piqued were further the woman when who might soliciting prostitu woman have been truck approached had the ran back to the approached tion. Id. The officer the vehi corner, Luqman’s truck moved for began investigatory stop, cle and the his ward, approached. as the vehicle product of which led to an arrest and Flight from a known area of criminal ac possession conviction for of crack cocaine. tivity aspect may is another that an officer holding that the officer did have (“Headlong flight— consider. See id. suspicion conducting reasonable for the wherever it occurs—is the consummate held, stop, we necessarily act of evasion: It not indica is conclude there was a ba- We reasonable certainly it wrongdoing, sug tive of but is sis for to conclude that he such.”). [the officer] gestive certainly Luqman While prostitu- had observed solicitation for any can possible create number of inno tion, actions, given what he saw and where and explanations cent for these we adopt singular explana need not A solitary might those when he saw it. female Rather, whether, tions. the question lawfully lean win- pause and toward the total, looking when at the facts a.m. in dow of vehicle 2:45 had officers reason to believe that criminal drug trafficking an area known for activity afoot. was The answer here is prostitution, and then decide to walk yes. away squad approached; as but possibility slight that is so that a reason-

Luqman contends that this case involves encountering that able officer sit- stop weaker factual basis for the than previous involving probably cases for uation can conclude that some- stops solicita- (most though lacked rea- likely police, even

thing illegal solicitation engaged that he was suspicion afoot. sonable prostitution) is activity. Although the district criminal Id. at 856. had that the officers court held sufficiently gave facts rise to As such suspicion Luqman that sol- reasonable too do so reasonable stopping his iciting prostitution prior to on his they justify here. Based vehicle, clearly holding rests on the Hill years experience patrolling North Luqman that was ar- erroneous conclusion familiarity pros- with the methods and his prostitu- neighborhood rested in a where solicitation, combined with titutes use for tion is common. For the reasons flight from the truck approach to and follow, conviction I would vacate witnessed, Donohue had the neces- that he arising evidence out and order sary reasonable to conduct vehicle be police stop Luqman. investigatory stop suppressed. Finally, scope of this at oral ar- prosecution As the admitted reasonably to the situation at hand. related in an gument, Luqman was arrested Martin, 289 F.3d at 397. Donohue See high prostitu- area noted for a incidence of Luqman questions possi as few asked Indeed, activity. data introduced tion if was solicit ble: he asked first trial prosecution demonstrates that ing and then he asked to see prostitution, year period, only prostitu- a one six over verify Luqman’s driver’s license vicinity of tion arrests occurred in the identity, acceptable which are both of Nevertheless, the ma- Luqman’s arrest. Byrd, questions. See United States jority now must treat holds we F.3d 1995 WL 72299 *3 Cir. neighborhood where was arrested 1995) decision) (noting that (unpublished merely “high prostitution” as a area be- may an detainee a moder [a] “officer ask that it is. cause a officer tells us questions ate number of to determine his ordinarily defer to Although court would identity try and to to obtain information of the ar- the on-the-scene observations confirming dispelling suspi or the officer’s officer, proper it is not for a resting police Obasa, (quoting cions” United States v. 15 where, here, judicial fact-finder to do so as (6th Cir.1994))). Further, 603, F.3d 607 objective provides support the record no it lengthy, partic the was not nor was for the I therefore officer’s conclusions. ularly invasive. respectfully dissent. Given both Donohue’s reasonable and activity articulable that criminal I. Facts afoot, scope and the limited of the partly The facts of this case are as correctly stop, the district court held that majority describes them. Officers James the officers did not violate patrol- Angela Donohue and Falcone were rights. Fourth Amendment Akron, ling an area of Ohio known as AFFIRMED. approximately p.m. North Hill at 11:40 on 19, 2005, night August when Officer CLAY, Judge, dissenting. Circuit standing on Donohue observed two women Luqman ap- nearby approached Abdus street corner. As he Defendant Salaam corner, one of the wom- peals being his conviction for felon this Donohue saw firearm, truck, by pickup in violation of en run to a red driven possession of 18 nearby. Be- 922(g)(1). Specifically, stopped § Defen- which was U.S.C. lieving could be a dant claims the firearm was discovered deal, unlawfully by made a to return to stopped after his vehicle was Donohue U-turn

619 Moreover, alleged Although deal. the street at that location. the site of the ac riding cording police, with Officer Falcone was neither woman was Officer time, provocatively, testified that she dressed or pre Donohue at this she otherwise alleged appearance prosti not see the transaction because sented outward of a did computer entirety was focused on her screen. tute. Based on the cir she these corner, approached arrest, surrounding Luqman’s As cumstances appeared ap- to notice the the woman the district court abused its discretion in and ran to the cor- proaching vehicle back concluding that reasonable suspicion exist ner, remaining proximity still within close to stop Luqman’s ed vehicle. away,

to the officers. Defendant drove Significance II. The of Officer Dono- officers, having nothing and the witnessed Testimony hue’s more, pull decided to him over. Officer Donohue testified that North however, errs, in much of majority Hill “high prostitution” neighborhood, is a of these facts. The ma- interpretation

its majority concludes Donohue’s concludes, jority relying merely on Officer testimony enough it make so. Our representation, Donohue’s that the North precedents, Supreme and those of the neighborhood Hill is a “known Court, do not support such an abdication Maj. Op. prosecu- area.” at 2. Yet the judicial of the role. The Fourth Amend tion’s own evidence rebuts Donohue’s ment prohibition on unreasonable searches by to a chart According claim. introduced trial, and seizures extends to vehicles during prosecution period See Brend 2005, part of a only investigation. until August August from 2004 — U.S. -, -, California, lin v. 24 prostitution arrests were made 127 (2007). 2400, 2404, square area several miles in size surround- S.Ct. 168 L.Ed.2d 132 neighborhood, only Accordingly, Hill Fourth ing the North “the Amendment re quires six of these arrests were in the immediate that the decision to stop [a vehicle] Moreover, vicinity something arrest. be based on ‘more substantial ” States United govern- this data was confirmed than inarticulate hunches.’ Roberts, argument ment’s concession at oral 986 F.2d Cir. Ohio, 1993) (quoting Terry high prostitution North Hill is not a area. 392 U.S. (1968)). may Regardless of what Officer Donohue L.Ed.2d 889 trial, have claimed at it is unclear what Admittedly, determining in whether a viewing basis he had for North Hill as rife stop proper, was we consider a law en- prostitution. with in description forcement officer’s of events regarding light experience Two other facts the circum of that officer’s “own and Luqman’s specialized training,” permitting stances of arrest further dimin the officer ish the likelihood that the had rea “to make inferences from and deductions about the information available suspicion sonable believe cumulative First, well elude an untrained soliciting prostitution. might [him] Martin, residences, United States 289 person.” was arrested near a number of (2002). Yet even as we alleged and the street corner where the F.3d 398 training, prostitutes congregated right across credit an officer’s wisdom and we objective Pharmacy.1 from a Rite-Aid must also seek an basis for the street founda- Consequently, it could not be viewed as officer’s conclusions. Absent some objective reality, in an officer’s de- law-abiding unusual for citizens to be on tion (J.A. dispute it 1. There is some as to the hours of this he "couldn’t tell” what time closed. Rite-Aid, and Officer Donohue testified that 103) 620 itself would be all but weight in a Fourth Amendment events bears no

seription of Wardlow, Any police-initiated stop, no abandoned. 528 court of law. See Illinois by unsupported matter how observation or 119, 123, L.Ed.2d 145 U.S. permissible would be because experience, (2000) (“[T]he re- Fourth Amendment always post an officer could construct objective a minimal level of quires at least justification satisfy this Court. hoc stop.”) justification making We responsibility to delegate Rather than our eyes in may through an officer’s eval- look to individu- uphold the Fourth Amendment on rea- uating whether a was based officers, apply I the test al would may we not view the suspicion, sonable but us, provided Supreme Court has exaggerates in a manner that interpretation that an of hold officer’s powers perception. trained officer’s of by at least a supported events must be Applying this standard to the facts objective justification.” “minimal level of arrest, Luqman’s it is clear Officer objective for de- Donohue lacked an basis scribing high prostitution Hill as a North III. Circumstances own According prosecution’s area. Arrest evidence, arrests prostitution a mere six Having determined that the record fails year period in a one in the vicini- occurred neighbor- Hill to establish that North is ty Luqman’s prosecution arrest. As the frequent activity, I prostitution hood of an urban area argument, conceded at oral turn now to the crux of case. In every other only with one such arrest determining whether had reasonable hardly prostitution. a hotbed of month is suspect engaged that a Moreover, incidence given such modest activity, criminal this Court must examine arrests, prostitution questionable it is “totality of the circumstances” ob- just experience what Officer Donohue by police thus, “courts con- served must — drawing concluding could have been on in observations, all the sider officer[’]s prostitution. that North Hill is rife with may insignifi- those that seem not discard Presumably, personally he could not have standing troubling cant or when viewed great prostitution deal of witnessed Martin, F.3d at alone.” 398. Accord- Hill, hardly prosti- as there was North whether, upon consid- ingly, this case rests seen; certainly tution to be and he could all of events observed ering participated many prostitution not have officers, those officers had rea- neighborhood, in this inasmuch as arrests Luqman might to believe sonable rarely such arrests occurred. While there soliciting prostitution. guilty be good is no reason to doubt Donohue’s faith The events which Officer Donohue wit- in testifying that he believed in an driving nessed were as follows: while Hill, testimony to be common North particularly area where is not constitutional simply does not meet the common, Donohue observed a woman that it some in requirement have basis speaking pickup with the driver of a truck. objective reality. See id. car around to further Donohue turned his majority that because

The tells us Offi- conversation, police the and as the observe says cer Donohue that is com- approached at the scene of the conver- Hill, begin inmon North this Court must sation, the the conversation quit woman inquiry and end its with that statement. nearby and returned to a street corner. Indeed, Our role is not so limited. were provocatively, The woman was not dressed say-so and, a enough speaking an officer’s mere estab- other than to member of sex, true, no that alleged opposite fact then the the she took actions lish as prostitute “simply speculation of a leave too much particularly evocative about were engaged Dono- whether was in soliciting [the woman] a client. Neither Officer loi- tering prostitution purposes Falcone were able to iden- for in hue nor Officer this (Martin, prostitute. particular a known instance.” Id. at 401 tify her as J., dissenting). case, I know of no Sixth Circuit none, Another, a majority non-prostitution cites which has made case is also in finding suspicion helpful resolving of reasonable based on the instant manner. Wardlow, justification. In In flimsy Supreme such a United Illinois the Court 94-5301, who, a Byrd, upheld Terry stop States v. No. 1995 WL of an individual Feb.21, 1995), heavy Cir. this Court while located in an area “known for ... upheld Terry stop place trafficking a which took after narcotics looked in the di a police prostitute ap- observed “known rection of the officers and fled.” 528 U.S. 121-22, proach passenger the car and lean into the at 120 S.Ct. 673. The officers in subsequently side window to talk to the driver of the Wardlow chased this individ holding, Byrd In ual a gangway alley, car.” Id. *1. so ex- down and an and suspicion eventually nearby that was es- him on a plained reasonable cornered by Taking tablished the combination of several street. Id. at 120 S.Ct. 673. a pros- high-crime facts: the woman was known to be into account both the area in titute; discovered, speak fleeing suspect she leaned into the car to to which the was sudden, driver; unprovoked and his flight its the officer had from the officers, “get off a night presence sharply warned her earlier divided streets;” a committing and the car was 5-4 Court held that the had reason likely by sitting parked suspicion suspect. traffic offense in able to search this Id. 125, 120 the middle of a street. Id. at *3. S.Ct. 673. Martin, present

In a divided The instant facts a much United States weaker panel finding suspicion considered a more difficult set of case for a of reasonable Byrd, than in involving Terry stop alleged present facts and Martin and Martin, Wardlow, In prostitution. officers observed Wardlow. Unlike Martin a woman enter a driven in an area with a vehicle In holding high prevalence defendant. 289 F.3d at 394. or other many Similarly, had reasonable crimes. of the other fac vehicle, majority finding panel supporting said tors reasonable Terry Byrd that four facts combined to allow a and Martin are not First, majority the vehicle. case. Neither Officer Do present found that the “dress and attire nohue nor Officer Falcone testified that woman’s typical prostitutes.” they recognized ap Id. at 399. the woman who Second, they truck proached noted that she was an area Defendant’s known Furthermore, prostitution activity.” prostitute. as Officer Dono “known Id. Third, they testimony, recog- testified hue admitted the woman any or in previously provocatively, nized her as a woman who had was not dressed fourth, distinguish her prostitution; way might been convicted of other which vehicle, did entering before the woman from other woman.2 woman vehicle, other gesture pros- made a hand associated with not lean into Defendant’s or gesture pros soliciting titutes customers. dis- wise make associated with sent, Martin that Judge argued these facts titution. majority mony prostitutes typically in Akron dress

2. The notes Officer Donohue’s testi- ertheless, majority Luq- claims that Moreover, of this case are dis- the facts analogous is to States man’s case United which oc- tinguishable flight from the (6th Cir.2005). Green, Fed.Appx. 853 Wardlow, in curred Wardlow. Unlike in howev- unpublished Our decision officers, suspect spotted the where the er, cursory a resemblance to only bears immediately led them in a chase down then case. involved a crimi- the instant Green street, alley an and another gangway, a who, in an nal defendant while 673, at the instant 528 U.S. drug trafficking pros- area “known in which a merely case involves an incident titution,” a speaking was discovered to to noticed speaking woman was leaning passenger into the woman who was nearby, and then returned to a officer police side of his car. Id. at 855. As a car nearby street corner. The woman did not conversation, approached the scene of this presence; simply the officers’ she flee abruptly” the woman “left officers, place close to the moved from one road onto the “quickly pulled off the place, also close to the officers. to another facts, Id. Based on these we sidewalk.” majority’s Contrary to the characterization suspicion held that had reasonable “[flight a of this woman’s actions as from question the vehicle and its driver. stop to activity,” Maj. Op. known area of criminal Id. at 856. in engage flight at the woman did not however, holding, is Essential Green’s kind, simply of but moved from the place fact that this took in “an actually in- street to the curb. Had she drug trafficking and prosti area known for by fleeing tended to evade arrest the scene that, majority tution.” Id. The is correct crime, a would alleged prostitute neighborhood were the North Hill a com have, least, very at the made some minimal seeking mon destination for men the com from the effort to remove herself officers’ panionship prostitutes, then vicinity. immediate ground. much firmer arrest would rest on Indeed, majority concedes its comparing But the instant case to Green opinion that the in the instant case change nature of the North does not support had for their decision to less in an Luqman Hill area. was arrested simply than existed cases such as not all area where Maj. Byrd. Op. speaking Martin and 618. Nev- common.3 T-shirt,” that, "jeans majority despite the fact and a sweatshirt or a rath- 3. The claims provocative clothing. Maj. opinion er than in more that the in Green does not reveal the Op. at n. 2. Yet even if we credit that the arrest in that source its conclusion area, testimony, nothing place high prostitution it does to bolster the ma- case took in a jority's position. It information must have come from the "[s]uch does follow from prostitutes typically investigating Maj. than in Akron do not officers in that case....” fact provocatively Op. n. 1. Even if we were free to dress woman who is unprovocatively reasonably speculate dressed can be about matters not contained in the Indeed, unpublished suspected being prostitute. opinion, Green and even if our accept proposition, we to such a ludicrous decision in Green bound this Court in decid- cases, ing is distin- Akron would have reasonable future the instant case case, stop virtually any suspected guishable. prosecution woman as a In this con- Martin, only prostitute. provocative As we held in ceded at trial that arrest support neighborhood can rea- occurred in the North Hill once dress is but one factor that month, subsequently prosti- every con- sonable that a woman is a other and it majority appeal high tute. 289 F.3d at now ceded on that North Hill is not 399. that, Akron, ««provocative prostitution area. We defer to an officer’s tells dress us. surrounding support description the events an ar- can also such a conclusion. woman, and the unremarkably dressed an HAMILTON, Cari Ann Plaintiff- much

supposed prostitute did so Appellant, leave the scene of ar- abruptly place moved from a rest as she nearby another on a sidewalk.4 street supporting light of the weak evidence GROUP, STARCOM MEDIAVEST stopping Luqman’s the officers’ excuse for USA, Inc., INC. and Leo Burnett

vehicle, I cannot conclude that this Defendants-Appellees. suspicion. supported reasonable

No. 07-1208. IV. Conclusion United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. majority

The decision the hands down contrary to the today completely is Argued: Feb. 2008. longstanding approach suppres- courts’ to the pursuant sion motions filed Fourth April Decided and Filed: 2008. an By essentially adopting Amendment. presumption that officer’s

unrebuttable the circumstances sur-

description Terry accurate,

rounding

majority delegates judiciary’s fact- officers, who

finding role

themselves have a stake the outcome of I suppression proceedings. cannot proper that it is to so limit the

conclude fact-finding Accordingly, function.

courts’ respectfully

I dissent. only description pace gait rest insofar as that has some less of the of the woman’s as she comer, See Ward objective reality. minimal basis in approached the street the fact re- low, 528 U.S. at We 673. mains that neither left the scene of her she certainly blindly should not credit such a de supposed made deal with nor scription wholly when it is inconsistent with attempt presence to flee the of the officers. prosecution’s own admissions. who, upon The distinction between a woman officer, noticing nearby police flees the that, majority 4. claims because sus- crime, suspected of a and a woman scene in Green “left pected prostitute abruptly’’ merely adjacent who relocates to an street deal, supposed prostitution scene of a corner is the material distinction between suspected prostitute case “ran” corner, Fed.Appx.at case and nearby street the two cases are mate- Regard- rially Maj. Op. similar. n. 855. 3.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Luqman

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Apr 8, 2008

Citation: 522 F.3d 613

Docket Number: 06-3943

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.