USA v. Larry Ledet, Jr.

Filing

USA v. Larry Ledet, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-30863

Document: 00511170976

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/13/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-30863 S u m m a r y Calendar July 13, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lle e v. L A R R Y W. LEDET, JR., D e fe n d a n t ­ A p p e lla n t .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:08-CR-68-1

B e fo r e DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* L a r r y W. Ledet, Jr.,pleaded guilty to and was convicted of being a felon in p o s s e s s io n of a firearm. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the fir e a r m , which fell from his pants while being patted down after a Terry 1 -t y p e s t o p . He argues that the arresting officer's detention implicated the Fourth A m e n d m e n t and therefore his actions had to be justified at their inception by a r e a s o n a b le suspicion that Ledet was engaged in criminal activity.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1 *

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30863

Document: 00511170976 Page: 2 No. 09-30863

Date Filed: 07/13/2010

I n reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this court r e v ie w s questions of law de novo and accepts the trial court's factual findings u n le s s they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728, 731 (5 t h Cir. 1999) (en banc). The legality of police investigatory stops is tested in t w o parts. United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). First, the court "examine[s] whether the officer's action was justified at its i n c e p t io n ," and then the court "inquire[s] whether the officer's subsequent a c t io n s were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the s t o p ." Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20). P u r s u a n t to Terry, "[p]olice officers may briefly detain individuals on the s t r e e t , even though there is no probable cause to arrest them, if they have a r e a s o n a b le suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." United States. v.

M ic h e lle tti, 13 F.3d 838, 840 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). "The Fourth Amendment r e q u ir e s only some minimum level of objective justification for the officers' a c t io n s -- b u t more than a hunch--measured in light of the totality of the c ir c u m s t a n c e s ." Id. " R e a s o n a b le suspicion must be supported by particular and articulable fa c t s , which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably w a r r a n t an intrusion." Id. (citation omitted). The district court's determination o f whether the facts provided reasonable suspicion is a conclusion of law r e v ie w e d de novo. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 441(5th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the reasonableness of an officer's actions, "`due weight' must be g iv e n to the facts and inferences viewed `in light of [the officer's] experience.'" Michelletti, 13 F.3d at 841 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). F u r t h e r , the facts must be judged against an objective standard, such that t h e court asks "would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the s e iz u r e or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the a c t io n taken was appropriate?" United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572, 1574 (5 t h Cir. 1992) (en banc) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 22) (internal quotation 2

Case: 09-30863

Document: 00511170976 Page: 3 No. 09-30863

Date Filed: 07/13/2010

m a r k s omitted). Factors germane to a reasonable suspicion analysis include: whether the area where the stop occurred was a high crime area or one "of e x p e c t e d criminal activity," Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000); w h e t h e r the individual engaged in "unprovoked flight upon noticing the police," id .; and whether the individual looked nervous or made furtive gestures or s u s p ic io u s movements. United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 897 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e initial action in the instant case was Officer Richards's approaching L e d e t 's vehicle, shining a light inside of it, and asking Ledet to roll down his w in d ow . Contrary to Ledet's assertions, Officer Richards's testimony established t h a t the area where Ledet was parked was known to be a high crime area, p a r tic u la r ly with regard to burglary of vehicles. Further, the manner in which L e d e t 's car was parked was suspicious. The license plate was not visible, the car w a s parked in a dimly lit area, and, although the parking lights were on, no one c o u ld be seen in the car. These particular and articulable facts, taken together w it h rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted Officer R ic h a r d s 's "intrusion," i.e. the shining of the spotlight into the car and asking L e d e t to roll down the window. See Michelletti, 13 F.3d at 840. T h e court's inquiry asks whether Officer Richards's subsequent a c t io n s -- o r d e r in g Ledet out of the car and patting him down­were reasonably r e la t e d in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop. See Brigham, 382 F .3 d at 506. "[T]he policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not b e denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972). "When an officer is justified in b e lie v in g that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at c lo s e range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others," he may c o n d u c t a limited protective search for concealed weapons. Terry, 392 U.S. at 24. "An officer need not be certain that an individual is armed; the issue is whether

3

Case: 09-30863

Document: 00511170976 Page: 4 No. 09-30863

Date Filed: 07/13/2010

a reasonably prudent man could believe, based on `specific and articulable facts,' t h a t his safety or that of others is in danger." Michelletti, 13 F.3d at 840-41. O ffic e r Richards testified that once he could see inside the car, it appeared t o him that Ledet was concealing something. Therefore, Officer Richards's order t h a t Ledet exit the car and his subsequent pat down were reasonably related in s c o p e to the circumstances that justified the stop. The district court did not err w h e n it denied Ledet's motion to suppress the firearm that dropped from his p a n ts during that pat down. AFFIRMED.

4