The DC Court of Appeals in Golden v. U.S., decided on April 15, 2021, reversed a CPWL (Carrying a Pistol without a License) conviction due to illegal stop, frisk and arrest.
On appeal, Golden argued that police had recovered the weapon from him by conducting an unreasonable stop and frisk in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and in that:
- Unconstitutionally seized Golden by confronting him on the street, subjecting him to accusatory questioning, and asking him to expose his waistband for visual inspection, all without a reasonable basis to suspect him of criminal activity;
- Unconstitutionally searched Golden by then frisking him for a weapon without an objectively reasonable basis to suspect he was armed and dangerous.
Factually, the GRU (Gun Recovery Unit) of MPD had spotted Golden walking on the street by himself and had further approached him for routine questioning when they noticed a bulge on his right hip covered by a sweatshirt. This had triggered more questioning, and eventually a search and recovery of the weapon.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seize. Not all street encounters however with police trigger constitutional scrutiny.
An encounter triggers the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures when an officer by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a person or had otherwise signaled that the individual is not free to walk away from police inquiry.
Even a brief stop of an unsuspecting person is an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment if it is conducted for investigatory purposes without a reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.
Here, Golden was going on with his business with no criminal actively on display, dispatched, or suspected. The approach, frisk and eventual seizure by police was all based on a hunch and speculation that Golden was carrying a weapon and that is not enough to meet the constitutional safeguard granted by the 4th Amendment.
The police had observed nothing more than Golden walking alone on a public street on a pleasantly warm evening, with a sweatshirt tied around his waist and a bulge that could have been any object on his right hip.
Thus, the Court held that viewing the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable, cautious, and experienced police officer on the scene, it can be concluded there were no objective, overt, and reasonable/articulable grounds to suspect Golden of being armed and dangerous — the grounds necessary to justify frisking him, and thus, the recovery of the weapon must be suppressed and thus conviction overturned.
Refer to our Washington DC Criminal Lawyer page for more details on this subject.