US v. Kenneth Oliver Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00025-HEH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999855978].. [15-4464]

Appeal: 15-4464

Doc: 33

Filed: 06/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH OLIVER BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:15-cr-00025-HEH-1)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

June 16, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, Mary E Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Stephen E. Anthony, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4464

Doc: 33

Filed: 06/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Oliver Brown entered a conditional guilty plea to
one

count

of

being

a

felon

in

possession

of

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).

a

firearm,

in

On appeal, Brown

argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence and statements obtained after Federal Bureau
of

Investigation

“investigatory
prostitution

(FBI)

agents

stopped

detention”

for

investigation.

We

him

and

questioning
affirm

the

placed

him

regarding

district

in
a

court’s

judgment.
We review factual findings underlying a district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo.
(4th Cir. 2015).

United States v. Hill, 776 F.3d 243, 247

“The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable

searches and seizures’ by the Government, and its protections
extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that
fall short of traditional arrest.”

United States v. Arvizu, 534

U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. IV).
cases,

“the

action

is

Fourth

supported

Amendment
by

is

satisfied

reasonable

criminal activity may be afoot.”

suspicion

if

the

to

In such
officer’s

believe

that

Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).

“Although a

mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of
suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof
2

Appeal: 15-4464

Doc: 33

Filed: 06/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously
less

than

is

necessary

for

probable

cause.”

Navarette

v.

California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We employ a “totality of the circumstances” analysis when
determining if an investigatory stop was supported by reasonable
suspicion.
2013).

United States v. George, 732 F.3d 296, 299 (4th Cir.

Under

together

to

this

approach,

create

a

“multiple

reasonable

factors

suspicion

even

factor, taken alone, would be insufficient.”
Cir.

2013)

(internal

quotation

marks

may

be

taken

where

each

Id. at 300 (4th

omitted).

A

series

of

individual actions by a defendant that in isolation would each
appear innocent or could be supported by an innocent explanation
may,

when

viewed

together,

support

a

finding

suspicion. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274, 277.

of

reasonable

To this point,

“[a] determination that reasonable suspicion exists . . . need
not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.”
Finally,

in

forming

an

“objective

basis”

for

Id. at 277.

initiating

an

investigatory stop, officers may “draw on their own experience
and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions
about the cumulative information available to them.”

Id. at 273

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Having
suspicion

reviewed

supports

the

FBI

record,

agents’
3

we

conclude

decision

to

that

detain

reasonable
Brown

for

Appeal: 15-4464

Doc: 33

Filed: 06/16/2016

questioning
investigation.
hotel

room

relation

in

Pg: 4 of 5

their

to

ongoing

prostitution

Specifically, FBI agents observed Brown enter a

occupied

by

a

known

prostitute

within

10

to

15

minutes of when an FBI agent had scheduled a “date” with the
prostitute.

Furthermore, Brown remained in the room while the

prostitute contacted the FBI agent and informed him that she was
ready

for

the

specialized

“date.”

Relying

training

with

on

their

respect

experiences
to

and

prostitution

investigations, FBI agents were entitled to conclude that the
timing of Brown entering the hotel room in question, along with
his presence in the room when the prostitute contacted the FBI
agent, created a reasonable probability that Brown was involved
in

prostitution,

likely

as

the

prostitute’s

pimp.

Brown’s

continued presence in the hotel following his exit from the room
in question also supported the conclusion that Brown was the
prostitute’s

pimp.

Accordingly,

although

one

could

imagine

innocent explanations for Brown’s presence in the hotel room,
the

timing

of

investigation
reasonable

his

presence,

into

suspicion

the
to

combined

prostitute,
believe

with

the

provided

Brown

was

FBI

agents’

agents
involved

with
in

prostitution and to detain him for questioning. *

*

Brown argues that his detention is analogous to the
detention of a random individual in a high crime area. We find
this argument without merit because the hotel room in question
(Continued)
4

Appeal: 15-4464

Doc: 33

Filed: 06/16/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err
in

denying

judgment.
legal
before

Brown’s

motion

to

suppress,

and

we

affirm

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

was the specific location of a crime, and the timing of Brown’s
presence in the hotel room creates a significantly greater link
to criminal activity than mere presence in a high crime area.

5