USA v. Goldy Thompson
OPINION filed : The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Karen Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge; Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge (Authoring) and Arthur J. Tarnow, U.S. District Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0454n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Jun 24, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
Before: MOORE and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; TARNOW, District Court Judge. *
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Goldy Thompson of being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Thompson challenges
the district court’s refusal to suppress the firearm upon which the charge was based. We affirm.
On October 12, 2011, Alice King called 911 from the Quality Bar in Toledo, Ohio to
report that one patron had threatened another patron with a gun. King told the dispatcher that she
was calling from behind the bar, and described the person with the gun as a black male wearing
black clothes. She also said that the suspect had left the bar.
Toledo Police Officers Nicholas Bocik and Scott Williamson responded to the call.
Outside the bar, they saw a black male in black clothing. Goldy Thompson was that person.
Bocik told Thompson to stop. Thompson ignored him. Bocik repeated his request. Thompson
The Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
United States v. Thompson
turned around and shoved Bocik, and then began to walk away. The two officers grabbed
Thompson and brought him to the ground.
During the scuffle, a third officer, William
Windnagle, saw Thompson drop a gun onto the sidewalk.
A grand jury thereafter indicted Thompson for one count of being a felon in possession of
a firearm. Thompson moved to suppress the firearm, but the district court denied the motion. A
jury found Thompson guilty.
The district court sentenced Thompson to 72 months’
imprisonment, well below his Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months.
Thompson now challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v.
Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645, 657 (6th Cir. 2013).
Thompson argues that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and search him.
Police officers may stop a person upon “a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” of
criminal activity, either past or future. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989);
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 227 (1985). Thompson contends that the officers did not
have any corroborating evidence to support the reliability of the 911 call and thus lacked
reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). But calls by
named citizens, especially those who give detailed accounts of the alleged conduct, can under
certain circumstances create reasonable suspicion. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233–34
(1983). And here King provided her name, described the illegal conduct, and gave the basis of
But we need not even determine whether the officers had reasonable suspicion when
Bocik first asked Thompson to stop. A person must yield to be seized. See California v. Hodari
D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991). Thus, when Thompson ignored Bocik’s request to stop, no seizure
United States v. Thompson
had occurred at that point. Then Thompson turned and shoved Officer Bocik, which gave the
officers probable cause to search and seize Thompson. See United States v. Allen, 619 F.3d 518,
526 (6th Cir. 2010). The officers did so by tackling him. And in doing so the officers saw
Thompson’s gun, which had fallen into plain view, and which the officers were therefore entitled
to seize. See Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 338 F.3d 535, 549 (6th Cir. 2003). Thus, the seizure of
the gun did not violate Thompson’s rights, and the district court properly denied the motion to
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
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?