United States of America v. Huertas
Filing
OPINION, Dissenting, by judge RSP, FILED.[2084216] [15-4014]
Case 15-4014, Document 64, 07/24/2017, 2084216, Page1 of 5
POOLER, Circuit Judge:
I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority on two points:
first, its treatment of the factual findings made by the district court and, second,
its treatment of the circuit split regarding whether a suspect must do more than
merely pause briefly in order to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment.
I
First, I do not agree that the facts of the case before us today are
comparable to the situation in United States v. Baldwin, 496 F.3d 215 (2d. Cir.
2007).
Baldwin stands clearly for one legal proposition and arguably for a second
legal proposition. First, the opinion states that “a suspect must do more than halt
temporarily” in order “to comply with an order to stop[ ]and thus to become
seized.” Id. at 218. Second, Baldwin suggests, in a single sentence, that “evasion of
police authority,” which I take to mean conduct that is part of a suspect’s plan to
flee from custody, will not constitute submission. Id. at 219.
The facts found by the district court do not support a decision under either
of these rules. Huertas did not simply “halt momentarily” in this case, but
instead stopped and answered some of the officer’s questions. See United States v.
Huertas, No. 3:14cr141, 2015 WL 1517403, at *1. The majority pins a great deal on
the district court’s statement that Huertas “remained still” when the officer
approached, United States v. Huertas, No. 3:14‐cr‐141, 2015 WL 1517403, at *1, and
that Huertas’s brief states that he remained in a “‘fixed’ position” through the
encounter. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 17. The majority takes this to mean
Huertas did not halt after having been walking previously. I doubt it matters, for
purposes of the Fourth Amendment, whether someone had previously been
walking and then stopped, or instead had previously been standing still and
continued to do so while engaging with an officer. I doubt even more, however,
that the district court crisply distinguished between these two possibilities, given
that the court elsewhere referred to the incident as a “stop,” 2015 WL 1517403, at
*3 n.1, applied a rule dealing with cases where suspects “halt temporarily,” id. at
1
Case 15-4014, Document 64, 07/24/2017, 2084216, Page2 of 5
*2, and, as the majority notes, accepted Huertas’s argument that he “briefly
stopped walking before he ran,” id. In view of both Huertas’s having stopped,
and the fact that he answered the officer’s questions, I would hold that the
limited “momentary halt” rule in Baldwin simply does not cover the situation
here.
Moreover, to the extent that Baldwin contains an additional “anti‐evasion”
principle, the principle seems to be limited to situations where, as in Baldwin, an
entire course of conduct is undertaken in an effort to flee from the police. In
Baldwin, the suspect stopped his car in order to lure officers out of their own
vehicles, thus giving himself an advantage in the ensuing car chase. Baldwin, 496
F.3d at 217. No other explanation existed for the suspect’s conduct, since he
never spoke to the officers or otherwise engaged with them. In this case, on the
other hand, the district court made no factual finding that Huertas stopped and
answered questions as part of a plan to flee from the police. Huertas, 2015 WL
1517403, at *1‐*2. To the contrary, the district court accepted Huertas’s version of
events for purposes of resolving the “submission” dispute, and Huertas’s version
of events involved a genuine submission to the officer’s authority, followed by a
change of heart and a decision to flee. Id. at *2 (“According to Mr. Huertas . . . he
submitted to Officer Lattanzio’s authority by pausing before running and by
beginning to answer the officer’s questions. However, even if Mr. Huertas briefly
stopped walking before he ran as he contends, given the totality of circumstances
here, that brief stop and verbal exchange did not constitute ‘submission[.]’”).
An important distinction exists between initial, earnest submission
followed by later flight, as opposed to an entire course of conduct undertaken to
ensure a getaway. See, e.g., United States v. Brodie, 742 F.3d 1058, 1061 (D.C. Cir.
2014) (“Later acts of noncompliance do not negate a defendant’s initial
submission, so long as it was authentic.”); United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350,
359 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Under some circumstances[,] we have held that a defendant
was seized despite his subsequent flight.”).
The majority attempts to establish Huertas’s “evasion” in two ways. First,
it suggests that Huertas did indeed stop in order to improve his chances of
getting away. Slip Op. at 4‐5. Nothing in the district court’s factual findings,
however, supports this view. Any statement that Huertas engaged with the
2
Case 15-4014, Document 64, 07/24/2017, 2084216, Page3 of 5
officer in order to improve his chance of escape would require us to find new
facts about his mental state—a type of fact‐finding that appellate courts such as
this one are ill‐situated to conduct.
Second, the majority extends the definition of “evasion” well beyond
activity intended to slow down pursuing officers. The majority states that
Huertas’s conduct was undertaken to “quiet suspicion and hope that Officer
Lattanzio would drive away after being satisfied with answers to his questions,”
and that Huertas thereby intended to “evade” the police. Slip Op. at 5. The
majority thus adopts the view that answering questions to clear one’s name
counts as “evasion” just as much as does pretending to submit so that officers
put themselves in a worse position for an impending chase.
The consequences of eliding this distinction are far‐reaching. Suppose, for
example, that a suspect speaks with the police not for one or two minutes, but for
an hour or two, because he thinks he can talk his way out of going to jail. Would
we say he had not submitted, since his only hope was that the interview would
“quiet suspicion” and that the officer would let him go “after being satisfied with
answers to his questions”? I am comfortable asserting that the vast majority of
criminal suspects engage with the police only when they think they will avoid
incarceration by doing so. Under that assumption, the majority’s position
suggests that stopping to speak with the police, even at length, is unlikely to
constitute a seizure because it instead will constitute evasion.
Accordingly, I cannot agree that Huertas’s conduct falls within Baldwin’s
“momentary halting” rule. Moreover, the district court did not find that
Huertas’s entire course of conduct was part of a plan to flee the police, and thus
this case does not fit within Baldwin’s anti‐evasion rule. To the extent that the
majority’s position would extend Baldwin’s anti‐evasion rule to cover any action
taken by a suspect to “quiet suspicion” in the hope that an officer “would drive
away after being satisfied,” it sweeps far too broadly.
II
Second, the majority embraces the wrong side of a deepening split
between the circuits regarding whether a suspect must do more than merely
3
Case 15-4014, Document 64, 07/24/2017, 2084216, Page4 of 5
pause briefly in order to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment.
The emergent view in the Courts of Appeals, although admittedly uneven
within the circuits, is that when a suspect does nearly anything more than
pausing briefly, including any significant verbal engagement with the officer,
that action is strong evidence of submission.1 See United States v. Camacho, 661
F.3d 718, 726 (1st Cir. 2011) (holding that suspect may “submit[] to [the officer’s]
show of authority by responding to his questions”); compare Brodie, 742 F.3d at
1061 (holding that suspect’s “action—putting his hands on the car when told to
do so by the police—[constituted] full compliance with the officerʹs request,” and
that the suspect was thus seized by police despite his later attempt to flee), and
United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1407 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that
hesitation and eye contact, without more, did not constitute submission), and
United States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561, 1565, 1566‐67 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that
suspect submitted when officer told him to “hold up” and the suspect replied
“What do you want?” before fleeing), with Valentine, 232 F.3d at 359 (holding that
“[e]ven if [suspect] paused for a few moments and gave his name, he did not
submit in any realistic sense” and thus there was no Fourth Amendment
seizure).
Actions more substantial than momentary hesitation, including answering
questions, should be considered strong signs of submission. First, courts have
recognized that almost any affirmative physical actions suggesting engagement
with the officer manifest an intention to submit to authority. See Brodie, 742 F.3d
Acknowledging that consensus reveals certain guideposts of submission,
including verbal engagement with an officer, is consistent with the “totality of
the circumstances” standard governing whether a suspect has submitted. Such
guideposts, which are sound generalizations applicable in the majority of cases,
appear in other areas governed by totality‐of‐the‐circumstances tests. See, e.g.,
Brower v. Cty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 598‐99 (1989) (noting that the use of a
roadblock generally establishes seizure); United States v. Martinez‐Fuerte, 428 U.S.
543, 556 (1976) (noting that vehicle “checkpoint stops are ‘seizures’ within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment”). In an unusual case—for example, where a
suspect speaks with an officer over a physical barrier between them—the
generalization that talking shows submission might well be overcome.
4
1
Case 15-4014, Document 64, 07/24/2017, 2084216, Page5 of 5
at 1061. It is not evident why there should be a distinction between affirmative
physical actions and affirmative non‐physical ones, such as answering questions,
if they manifest the same intention.
Second, the principle that seizure requires submission originated only
recently in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), and must be limited in
reach so that it does not eviscerate Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Hodari
dealt with a group of men who immediately took flight upon seeing police
officers, and the Supreme Court held that they were not “seized” when they ran
away. Id. at 622‐23, 629. That reasoning is workable as far as it goes, but it cannot
go very far. For as Justice Stevens noted in dissent, the Supreme Court has in the
past fifty years taken an expansive view of what constitutes a “seizure,” id. at
632, and has written, for example, that a suspect “may not be detained even
momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so,” id. at 640
(emphasis in original). As even “momentar[y] detention” may constitute a
seizure, we must be careful not to remove constitutional protections surrounding
brief seizures even where suspects later flee.
The rules surrounding police investigations have become a veritable
minefield for the unwary. The majority opinion further complicates and impairs
the constitutional protections afforded to persons facing police questioning, and
will increase uncertainty about protections applicable during the course of
investigations. In so doing, the majority joins the wrong side of a deepening split
between the circuits over this important issue.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?