United States v. Muhammad - 463 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2006)

Rule:

In an appellate court's review of reasonable suspicion determinations, the court assesses the totality of the circumstances supporting the investigatory stop. The court makes such an assessment in order to decide whether the officer's suspicion of wrongdoing has an objective and particularized basis. An officer may draw on his own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to him that might well elude an untrained person.

Facts:

An anonymous cell phone call to the Buffalo Police 911 Call Center at approximately 11:13 PM reported that a black man, attired in a white sweat suit and carrying a gun, was riding a bicycle west on Stanislaus Street toward Fillmore Avenue in the City of Buffalo. According to the caller, who never was identified, the gun was "out in the open." At approximately 11:16 P.M., the information provided by the caller was relayed by radio transmission to Buffalo police officers Richard Cruz and Joseph Langdon, who were on duty in a marked patrol car. After receiving the call, the officers made their way toward Stanislaus Street. Driving east on Stanislaus, Officer Cruz noticed a black man on a bike dressed in white. The officers attempted to slow down the suspect, later identified as defendant, but the suspect increased the speed of his bicycle. The officers were eventually able to stop the suspect. The officers then escorted the suspect to a patrol car, where he was constrained to stand with his hands on the trunk. It was at that point that Officer Cruz observed a black gym bag strapped to the suspect’s back. In response to Officer Cruz's question as to the contents of the gym bag, the suspect said that the bag contained a baseball bat. Fearing that even a baseball bat could be used against them, the officer patted the bag down for safety. At the top of the closed bag, the officer felt "some type of muzzle from some type of weapon." Opening the bag after removing it from the suspect’s back, the officer discovered within the bag an SKS 7.62-millimeter caliber assault rifle. Following his arrest, defendant was charged in a single count indictment with violating the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Defendant sought suppression of the seized rifle on the ground that it was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant contended that the police had no reasonable suspicion of the sort that would justify stopping him and that the consequent search of his gym bag and seizure of its contents were unlawful. The district court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Thereafter, defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal the order denying his motion to suppress pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Should the rifle be suppressed as evidence on the basis that it was seized in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that while there was an anonymous tip that lacked any indicia of reliability, the officers’ personal observation of defendant's evasive conduct was the additional factor that corroborated the anonymous tip and provided the objective manifestation that criminal activity was afoot. The totality of the circumstances, which included the detailed description by the anonymous tipster, the rapid identification of the bicyclist as described in the tip, and the location of defendant in a high crime area, when combined with the officers' personal observations and their own experience and specialized training, provided a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the officers who stopped defendant did so on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. Once the officers properly stopped defendant, they were entitled to conduct a patdown search following defendant's problematic response to their query as to the contents of the gym bag strapped to his back. At the time they conducted the patdown, the officers had identified defendant from previous encounters as one who was not cooperative, and was "likely to flee."