UNITED STATES V. MUHAMMAD 463 F.3d 115 (2nd Cir. 2006) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. MUHAMMAD

463 F.3d 115 (2nd Cir. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Muhammad (D) appealed from a judgment of conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon challenging the denial of the motion to suppress an assault rifle found in D's possession.

FACTS: An anonymous cell phone call to the Buffalo Police 911 Call Center was made The female caller 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. The gun was 'out in the open.' Officers Richard Cruz and Joseph Langdon, responded. Approaching the intersection of Rother Avenue they 'noticed a black male on a bike dressed in white, traveling west on Stanislaus.' They 'attempted to slow down the suspect by approaching him in a forty-five-degree angle toward the curb.' The suspect increased the speed of his bicycle and drove it between the curb and the patrol car. Officer Cruz considered that 'the [suspect] was attempting to flee.' At that time, there was no one else in the vicinity, which the officers knew to be a high crime area. Officer Langdon got out of the patrol car, chased the suspect and yelled at him to stop while Cruz tried to cut off the suspect's departure by driving the patrol car in reverse. The suspect was told to stop a number of times but continued to ride his bicycle, and 'kept trying to pass our vehicle.' Another marked patrol car arrived, pulled in front of the suspect and blocked his passage. The suspect attempted to drive around the other patrol car. The suspect was eventually stopped. Officer Moran recognized the bicyclist as D, with whom he had had a previous encounter and whom he described as a person who 'gets very agitated' and is not cooperative. Officer Clark also had past experience with D and described him in similar terms and as one 'likely to flee.' D dropped the bicycle as ordered, and Langdon grabbed one of Muhammad's arms and another officer took his other arm. The officers then escorted D 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 D's back. D said that the bag contained a baseball bat. Aware of the time of night, the absence of baseball fields in the vicinity, and the fact that they were in a high crime area, the officers were concerned that the bag might contain a gun. The officers feared that even a baseball bat could be used against them. Officer Cruz 'patted the bag down for officer safety,' while Officer Langdon did a pat down of D's person. Cruz felt 'some type of muzzle from some type of weapon.' Opening the bag after removing it from D's back, Officer Cruz discovered within the bag an SKS 7.62 millimeter caliber assault rifle. D was charged with violating the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). D sought suppression because 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. Upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances presented to the police officers at this point, to wit, the detailed description of the suspect, the caller's report of observing the suspect carrying the gun out in the open, the negligible amount of time which elapsed between the call and the officers' response, the fact that no one else was in the vicinity, the high incidence of crime in the neighborhood, and the suspect's attempt to flee when the police officers indicated their desire to speak with him, the Court finds there was reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The judge found the duration of the seizure and the scope of the search comported with its justification. The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the motion to suppress. D 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).

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner