Officers Robert Fain and Chris Dees were patrolling an area known to be a hotbed for drug sales. When they approached Gevoyl Beauchamp, he twice walked away from the officers, avoiding eye contact. The officers directed Beauchamp to stop and then searched him, discovering narcotics. The Sixth Circuit held that the officers violated Beauchamp's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
On Feb. 15, 2008, at 2:30 a.m., Officer Robert Fain was patrolling near the Jacob Price housing project in Covington, Ky., an area with a purportedly high number of drug complaints. Officer Fain's partner, Officer Chris Dees, was patrolling nearby in a separate vehicle.
Officer Dees noticed an individual, Gevoyl Beauchamp, with another person. Dees then approached Beauchamp. Beauchamp walked away quickly without making eye contact. Dees directed Fain to stop the "suspicious subject." Moments later, Fain spotted Beauchamp crossing a street. Fain sped up and parked next to Beauchamp. Beauchamp then walked around a wrought iron fence, away from Officer Fain.
Fain directed Beauchamp to stop and come toward him. Beauchamp complied, though he was visibly nervous and shaking. After questioning Beauchamp, Fain frisked Beauchamp, finding $1300 in cash and a cellular phone. Beauchamp's pants were around his thighs, and Fain proceeded to pull out Beauchamp's boxers. Fain discovered a plastic bag sticking out from Beauchamp's buttocks. The officers knew that it was common for drug dealers in the area to carry narcotics wrapped in plastic between their buttocks.
Dees joined Fain and recognized Beauchamp from previous encounters. Fain signaled to Dees that he had found something of interest. Dees grabbed Beauchamp by his pants and Fain again pulled Beauchamp's boxers back and asked Beauchamp what was "between his butt cheeks." Beauchamp attempted to run, but was unable to escape the officers' grip. The officers secured Beauchamp and removed the plastic, revealing approximately eighteen rocks of crack cocaine.
Beauchamp was arrested and then indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Before trial, Beauchamp moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. His motion was denied. The district court found that the search was reasonable because the Beauchamp: (1) was recognized by an officer from previous encounters; (2) at 2:30 in the morning; (3) in a housing project that was the source of many drug complaints; (4) with another individual; and (5) he hurriedly walked away from a police officer while avoiding eye contact. With this finding, Beauchamp entered a conditional guilty plea, pending an appeal on the denial of his motion to suppress.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the district court's reasoning unpersuasive and addressed the five supporting facts found by the district court in turn.
First, although Dees recognized Beauchamp, this was an erroneous consideration by the district court because Fain had already seized and at least partially searched Beauchamp when Dees recognized Beauchamp.
Second and third, although the time of night and high rate of trafficking in the area may be considered in the totality of the circumstances, they "may not, without more, give rise to reasonable suspicion." United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir. 2006).
Fourth, the fact that Beauchamp was seen talking to another individual in no way created reasonable suspicion. People are free to speak to others without giving rise to a search.
Fifth, although nervous and evasive behavior, like hiding in a bush or running away to avoid police officers, may give rise reasonable suspicion, Beauchamp avoiding eye contact with and walking away from officers did not create reasonable suspicion here. Indeed, "walking away from police ‘constitutes a factor to be outrightly dismissed'" by the courts. United States v. Patterson, 340 F.3d 368, 372 (6th Cir. 2003).
The government also argued that the search was consensual, but the court of appeals rejected this assertion, finding that Beauchamp had twice attempted to walk away from police officers and only stopped when directed to do so. Beauchamp was not informed of his right to refuse a search and had objectively demonstrated that he did not want to have an encounter of any sort with police.
For these reasons, the court of appeals found that Beauchamp's Fourth Amendment protections had been violated and reversed the district court's ruling on the suppression motion.
The case is United States v. Beauchamp and can be read here.
No comments:
Post a Comment