Baltimore City police officers Jimmy Shetterly, Frank Schneider and Manuel Moro were on patrol when they pulled over a car in which Travis Gaines was a passenger. Noticing that Gaines was attempting to climb over the seat, officers immediately directed him to exit the vehicle and patted him down and discovered that Gaines had a firearm in the process. A scuffle followed in which Gaines struck two of the officers and Gaines' firearm fell out of his waistband. Gaines was charged in state court on assault charges and in federal court on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm. However, because it was found that the initial stop of the vehicle and the pat down of Gaines were unlawful, the gun evidence was suppressed.
On Jan. 26, 2010, Baltimore City police officers Shetterly, Schneider and Moro were on patrol in a marked police cruiser in Baltimore, Md. The officers observed a passing white Ford Crown Victoria. The officers activated their emergency lights and pulled the vehicle over. The officers later testified that the vehicle had a cracked windshield, which they claimed served as their justification for initiating a stop.
After activating their lights, the officers observed Gaines, who had been a passenger, attempting to climb over the front seats. Officers directed Gaines to exit the vehicle. Gaines complied and Shetterly immediately initiated a pat down.
During the pat down, Shetterly felt the trigger guard and handle of a firearm and yelled "gun" to alert the other officers of the potential danger. Gaines then struck Shetterly in the face and turned to flee; at this time, Shetterly visually observed what he clearly identified as an exposed silver and black firearm protruding from Gaines' waistband. In the ensuing scuffle, the officers pushed Gaines into the open trunk of the Crown Victoria and were able to handcuff him. Gaines' firearm, a .380 semi-automatic pistol, fell into the trunk.
Before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Gaines was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Prior to trial, Gaines moved to suppress the firearm on the grounds that the initial stop and subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The district court granted the motion to suppress, holding that the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and was accordingly unlawful. The court found that the officers could not have seen the very slight crack in the lower right portion of the Crown Victoria's windshield. The district court further ruled that "Gaines' assault of Officers Shetterly and Schneider did not purge the taint of the unlawful stop in a manner sufficient to allow the gun to be admitted into evidence against Gaines.
Critical to the court's analysis was the ‘clear and undisputed' sequence of events that led to the seizure of the firearm: Gaines was ordered out of the vehicle and patted down, the gun was discovered, and only then did Gaines attack the officers."
The government appealed the suppression to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.
On appeal, the government conceded that the initial stop was unlawful. However, the government argued that because Gaines had subsequently engaged in a new, distinct crime by assaulting officers, evidence of Gaines' gun possession attained subsequent to the assault was admissible. The government supported its proposition by citing precedent stating that where an "arrest for [a] new, distinct crime is lawful, evidence seized in a search incident to that lawful arrest is admissible." United States v.Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 619 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Government asserted, Gaines' assault on officers purged any taint caused by the unlawful nature of the initial stop.
Gaines, however, argued that the firearm was discovered before any illegal activity and thus discovery of the gun could not be attenuated by an intervening criminal act.
The court of appeals agreed with Gaines, finding that not only had the discovery of the gun been made before the subsequent illegal act, but the unlawful discovery of the gun had in fact been the cause of the subsequent illegal act.
Accordingly, the court of appeals held that the discovery of the gun could not be admitted into evidence against Gaines because the causal chain originating with an illegal stop had not been broken.
However, the court of appeals found it important to note that despite suppression of the gun evidence, assault charges had been brought against Gaines in the Maryland state courts, and took no action which would appear to halt those proceedings. Thus, although the gun evidence was inadmissible, it appeared to the court of appeals that the state court assault charges could remain as a result of Gaines' subsequent illegal act.
No comments:
Post a Comment