Facts
On June 25, 2021, Officers Fernandez and Guzman of the Corpus Christi Police Department (“CCPD”) were patrolling the “Adam district” in Corpus Christi, Texas. The Adam district is a high-crime area known for frequent drug activity and violent crime. The officers arrived to patrol the Ranch Motel on foot around 8:00am. The owners of the motel had requested CCPD to patrol their property and arrest trespassers. The motel has a large, bright orange sign posted at its entrance that warns people against trespassing. Officer Fernandez patrolled the motel grounds almost every day and was in weekly contact with the owners of the motel. The Ranch Motel received such heavy police attention because of the frequent crime that occurs there.
A few minutes into their patrol, the officers spotted a bright green Mitsubishi Mirage parked around the back side of the motel. A man was sitting in the car alone. This raised the officers’ suspicions. The rear side of the motel was a particular hot spot for drug activity, especially heavy narcotic sales. And despite Officer Fernandez’s regular patrols, he did not recognize the vehicle at all. The officers approached the vehicle and began to speak with the man sitting in the driver seat, Phillip Cole, through the open window. Officer Guzman announced himself as a police officer and asked if Cole had a room at the motel. Cole replied: “Excuse me?” Officer Guzman repeated the question. Cole responded: “Uh, yes sir, uh right here, 127. I just texted my uh friend uh to come out.”
Officer Guzman then asked if Cole was picking somebody up, to which Cole said, “No, I’m staying with my friend, her name is uh uh Carmen.” Before saying her name, Cole looked down at his phone. Officer Fernandez then joined the discussion, asking three questions in quick succession. “Do you have a room or not? You’re not staying here then[?] This is your friend, right?” Cole simultaneously said he was picking her up. The officers then asked Cole for his identification. Cole continued to repeat that he was picking up his friend. Throughout the conversation, Cole’s hands were restless. He would point to the room, turn down his radio, and grab his phone.
At this point, the officers asked Cole to step out of his vehicle and if he had any weapons on him. Cole said he only had a pocketknife. Cole stepped out of the vehicle and put his hands on the hood of the car. While Officer Guzman frisked Cole, Cole mentioned that he had just gotten out of prison for bank robbery. The officers asked Cole for his identification again, and Cole told them it was in his backpack in the car. After Cole made additional inconsistent statements, Officer Fernandez informed Cole he was being detained, and the officers placed Cole in handcuffs. The car door was still open. When Officer Fernandez looked inside, he saw a handgun on the driver’s-side floorboard. Shortly thereafter, the officers told Cole he was under arrest. CCPD later performed an inventory search of the car and found: a Glock 27 GEN 4, .40 caliber pistol; a host of ammunition; three .40 caliber Glock magazines; one Pro Mag .40 caliber drum magazine with a capacity of over 50 rounds; marijuana and synthetic cannabinoid; weight scales; and plastic baggies.
Cole was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The first count was for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The second and third counts alleged violations of the same provisions for possessing ammunition as a convicted felon. Cole moved to suppress all evidence found in the car and derived from his encounter with the officers. The district court denied that motion. So Cole proceeded to a stipulated bench trial on the first count. The district court found Cole guilty and sentenced him to 84 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Cole argued the evidence should have been suppressed. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Reasonable suspicion is a low bar. It is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence.
A. Assume seizure occurred when officers first approach Cole
Cole argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to seize him. Even assuming the seizure occurred when the officers first approached Cole, there was reasonable suspicion. Cole was in a high-crime area. More specifically, he was in the parking lot of a motel where trespass and drug crimes regularly occurred. Because of this, the motel had even specifically requested CCPD to regularly patrol and arrest trespassers. See Darrell (indicating that a house or neighborhood with “a reputation for criminal activity” is a fact supporting reasonable suspicion).
Moreover, the car was parked around the back of the motel, a particular spot known by the officers to be a popular location for drug deals. Officer Fernandez’s suspicions were heightened because he did not recognize Cole’s car, despite patrolling the motel grounds almost every day. See Samaguey (finding a “contributing factor” to reasonable suspicion when an officer “familiar with the locals, did not recognize the driver or the car”). On top of this, Cole was sitting in the car with no apparent intention of driving away or exiting the vehicle to go inside the motel. See Flowers (noting that idling in a car supports reasonable suspicion); Rucker (holding that “idling in a running car in a high crime area” contributes to reasonable suspicion). This was enough to give the officers reasonable suspicion.
Our decision in Hill is not to the contrary. First, in Hill, the high-crime area was an entire large county. Second, the car in Hill was parked “in plain view” near the parking lot’s front entrance, not in a more suspicious spot on the back side of the property. Third, the officers in Hill were patrolling on their own initiative, not because they were called or had a reason to suspect any particular criminal activity there at the time. Here, the officers regularly patrolled the motel grounds because of the motel’s specific requests. We thus find that the officers had reasonable suspicion when they first approached Cole.
B. Seizure occurred when Cole ordered out of his car
It is obvious, however, that the seizure did not occur prior to Cole being ordered out of his car. Thus, his behavior prior to that point further supports the officers’ reasonable suspicion to ultimately seize him.
A seizure occurs when someone submits to an officer’s show of authority. This occurs when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. See SCOTUS United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980). If the person has no intention of leaving for reasons unrelated to the police presence, the test becomes whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. See SCOTUS Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007).
Clearly not every street encounter between a citizen and the police constitutes a seizure. Law enforcement officers do not seize anyone by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, or by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen. Nor do officers seize someone by merely asking for identification. See SCOTUS Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).
The officers here did not seize Cole during their conversation with him prior to ordering him out of the car. Only two officers, not several, approached Cole. These officers did not summon Cole to their presence, but instead approached him while he was sitting in his car with his window down. Nor did the officers flash lights or sound sirens. They calmly approached Cole on foot. The officers then simply began to ask basic questions about why Cole was parked there, before asking for his identification. They did not threaten Cole. They did not command Cole to do anything. They did not brandish any weapon. They did not move in an intimidating fashion. Nor did they block Cole’s ability to move his vehicle. In short, it is abundantly clear that this was an entirely consensual encounter that does not rise to the level of a seizure.
Thus, because Cole was not yet seized, his behavior prior to being ordered out of the vehicle further supports finding reasonable suspicion to ultimately seize him. Cole did not immediately answer if he had a room at the motel. He offered inconsistent responses about whether he was staying at the motel or merely picking up a friend. And he paused and looked at his phone before answering who he was staying with at the motel. All the while, he was fidgeting continuously. This nervous and evasive behavior bolsters the officers’ reasonable suspicion.
The officers clearly had reasonable suspicion to conduct a brief investigatory stop. Cole’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The district court was correct to deny Cole’s motion to suppress the resulting evidence.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-40158.0.pdf