• Home
  • About

walshslaw

perspectives on law, from Richmond VA

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Maritain on materialistic imperialism, the magnification of the state, the limits of rationalism, and the need for faith to make of joy in existence an intelligent delight
John Marshall (as Congressman) explains that the judicial power extends to cases in law and equity that arise under the Constitution, not to all questions that arise under the Constitution »

Fourth Circuit affirms denial of suppression motion, recognizing limits to recent suppression holdings

December 12, 2011 by Kevin C. Walsh

The federal government has had difficulty beating back suppression motions in the Fourth Circuit this past year. Last week, however, a panel unanimously affirmed the denial of a suppression motion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion in United States v. Glover, which was joined in by Judge King and Judge Diaz. (Attentive readers may also have noted that Judge Wilkinson authored the majority opinion in United States v. Braxton a couple of weeks ago, also affirming denial of a suppression motion–that time, over the dissent of Judge Wynn.)

The opinion begins as follows:

Paul Glover entered a conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a stop-and-frisk in a deserted gas station parking lot in the wee hours of the morning. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s denial of Glover’s suppression motion.

The stop-and-frisk here occurred after officers observed the defendant lurking outside of the range of the closed circuit cameras at a 24-hour service station at around 4:40 a.m. Judge Wilkinson writes that the circumstances facing the officers were far different than those in United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011), which “concerned the stop of  a driver believed to be involved in drug activity in the middle of the day in a low-crime area.”

With respect to police reliance on nervous behavior, which the Fourth Circuit criticized in United States v. Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2011), Judge Wilkinson wrote:

While it is important not to overplay a suspect’s nervous behavior in situations where citizens would normally be expected to be upset, see United States v. Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480, 490 (4th Cir. 2011), Glover was furtively watching the attendant from a location outside the range of surveillance cameras, glancing around the corner, and pulling his head back well before Officers Skipper and Archer stopped the patrol car. Such conduct is far more like the casing of the store in Terry than the case of nerves a citizen might ordinarily exhibit in interactions with police.

Advertisements

Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Print
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Fourth Circuit, Law | Tagged Diaz, Fourth Amendment, King, stop-and-frisk, Terry v. Ohio, Wilkinson |

  • Twitter Feed

    • @potus @realDonaldTrump can get his name in the history books by championing the Melania Trump Amendment (AKA the "… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 12 hours ago
    Follow @kevincwalsh
  • Archives

    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • April 2014
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
  • Categories

    • Catholic
    • Fourth Circuit
    • Law
    • News
  • Pages

    • About
  • Popular Tags

    5000A abortion ACA ACCA Affordable Care Act Agee amicus curiae Anti-Injunction Act Baltimore Catholic class action conspiracy contraception contraceptives mandate Cuccinelli Davis Diaz DOMA Duncan en banc Establishment Clause evidence facial challenge First Amendment Floyd FOIA Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit Free Exercise Gregory habeas corpus Hamilton HCR healthcare health care healthcare reform health care reform HHS HHS mandate immigration individual mandate interlocutory appeal John Marshall jurisdiction Keenan Keith Kennedy King Lawrence v. Texas Motz Niemeyer partial unconstitutionality piracy preemption religious liberty RFRA Richmond Same-sex marriage Scalia Second Amendment Section 5000A sentencing severability Shedd Sixth Circuit standing suppression Supreme Court Third Circuit Traxler USCCB Virginia Virginia v. Sebelius Wilkinson Wynn
  • Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: