USA v. Carter: Whether perceptions of law enforcement that a court attributes to a particular racial group are a relevant factor in the Fourth Amendment analysis of whether a member of that group has been seized.
Ask who never gets charged.
Police officers in a gun-recovery unit, who were conducting an interdiction in response to “‘an uptick in shootings and sounds of gunfire’ in the area,” encountered a group of ten black men, including Donte Carter, on a sidewalk. One officer asked Carter “how he was ‘doing,’ to which [respondent] briefly replied, ‘how are you doing’ or ‘what’s up’ before turning away.” Carter “lifted his shirt to show his waistband and then lowered it,” and the officer “asked, ‘[h]ey [c]hamp, you not got nothing on you?’” After Carter said no “and lifted his shirt again,” the officer “requested, ‘[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quick?’”
In the meantime, another officer had “noticed a bulge in Carter's groin area.” “When Carter raised his pants in response to [the first officer’s] question,” the second officer “saw that the bulge was an L-shape, which he believed to be a firearm.” The second officer “subsequently frisked Carter, and after a brief struggle in which the other officers on the scene joined, the officers recovered a firearm hidden in Carter's pants.”
Carter was charged in D.C. Superior Court with eight offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He moved to suppress the firearm and other evidence “on grounds that they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The trial court denied the motion, and Carter was convicted after trial and sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment.
The DC Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. The court viewed “the central question” as whether Carter had been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes before being asked “to raise his pants,” on the premise that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity did not arise until after that moment. And in addressing that question, the DCCA found that its prior decision in Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933 (2019), required it to “examine the impact of [respondent’s] race” as one of the relevant factors.
The DCCA’s analysis of whether a seizure had occurred accordingly relied on statistics and academic literature to conclude that “Black men, generally speaking, are especially cautious around and more likely to comply with the demands of law enforcement.” And the court determined that that Carter therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because, in its view, “an objective and reasonable Black man in [respondent’s] shoes” would not have believed he was free to leave even before being asked to raise his pants, and that respondent therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Ask who never gets charged.
Police officers in a gun-recovery unit, who were conducting an interdiction in response to “‘an uptick in shootings and sounds of gunfire’ in the area,” encountered a group of ten black men, including Donte Carter, on a sidewalk. One officer asked Carter “how he was ‘doing,’ to which [respondent] briefly replied, ‘how are you doing’ or ‘what’s up’ before turning away.” Carter “lifted his shirt to show his waistband and then lowered it,” and the officer “asked, ‘[h]ey [c]hamp, you not got nothing on you?’” After Carter said no “and lifted his shirt again,” the officer “requested, ‘[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quick?’”
In the meantime, another officer had “noticed a bulge in Carter's groin area.” “When Carter raised his pants in response to [the first officer’s] question,” the second officer “saw that the bulge was an L-shape, which he believed to be a firearm.” The second officer “subsequently frisked Carter, and after a brief struggle in which the other officers on the scene joined, the officers recovered a firearm hidden in Carter's pants.”
Carter was charged in D.C. Superior Court with eight offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He moved to suppress the firearm and other evidence “on grounds that they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The trial court denied the motion, and Carter was convicted after trial and sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment.
The DC Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. The court viewed “the central question” as whether Carter had been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes before being asked “to raise his pants,” on the premise that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity did not arise until after that moment. And in addressing that question, the DCCA found that its prior decision in Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933 (2019), required it to “examine the impact of [respondent’s] race” as one of the relevant factors.
The DCCA’s analysis of whether a seizure had occurred accordingly relied on statistics and academic literature to conclude that “Black men, generally speaking, are especially cautious around and more likely to comply with the demands of law enforcement.” And the court determined that that Carter therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because, in its view, “an objective and reasonable Black man in [respondent’s] shoes” would not have believed he was free to leave even before being asked to raise his pants, and that respondent therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
USA v. Carter: Whether perceptions of law enforcement that a court attributes to a particular racial group are a relevant factor in the Fourth Amendment analysis of whether a member of that group has been seized.
Ask who never gets charged.
Police officers in a gun-recovery unit, who were conducting an interdiction in response to “‘an uptick in shootings and sounds of gunfire’ in the area,” encountered a group of ten black men, including Donte Carter, on a sidewalk. One officer asked Carter “how he was ‘doing,’ to which [respondent] briefly replied, ‘how are you doing’ or ‘what’s up’ before turning away.” Carter “lifted his shirt to show his waistband and then lowered it,” and the officer “asked, ‘[h]ey [c]hamp, you not got nothing on you?’” After Carter said no “and lifted his shirt again,” the officer “requested, ‘[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quick?’”
In the meantime, another officer had “noticed a bulge in Carter's groin area.” “When Carter raised his pants in response to [the first officer’s] question,” the second officer “saw that the bulge was an L-shape, which he believed to be a firearm.” The second officer “subsequently frisked Carter, and after a brief struggle in which the other officers on the scene joined, the officers recovered a firearm hidden in Carter's pants.”
Carter was charged in D.C. Superior Court with eight offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He moved to suppress the firearm and other evidence “on grounds that they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The trial court denied the motion, and Carter was convicted after trial and sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment.
The DC Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. The court viewed “the central question” as whether Carter had been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes before being asked “to raise his pants,” on the premise that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity did not arise until after that moment. And in addressing that question, the DCCA found that its prior decision in Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933 (2019), required it to “examine the impact of [respondent’s] race” as one of the relevant factors.
The DCCA’s analysis of whether a seizure had occurred accordingly relied on statistics and academic literature to conclude that “Black men, generally speaking, are especially cautious around and more likely to comply with the demands of law enforcement.” And the court determined that that Carter therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because, in its view, “an objective and reasonable Black man in [respondent’s] shoes” would not have believed he was free to leave even before being asked to raise his pants, and that respondent therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
0 Comments
0 Shares
29 Views
0 Reviews
