United States v. Derrick Kim Patterson

Summary

**Fourth Amendment – Terry Frisk / Execution of Search Warrant** The Eighth Circuit held that a pat-down search of a defendant who arrived in a known drug suspect’s van at a residence being searched for narcotics was constitutional under *Terry v. Ohio*, because the officers had specific articulable facts (recent drug activity, high call volume, and the defendant’s connection to the location) creating reasonable suspicion of danger. **Sentencing Guidelines – Acceptance of Responsibility** The court also upheld the denial of a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility, finding that the defendant’s justification for carrying a firearm (self-protection) was a factual determination not clearly erroneous. **Key Distinction** The case was distinguished from *United States v. Clay* (8th Cir. 1981) because the defendant was not ordered in at gunpoint and had a pre-existing connection to the premises.

Holdings

1. The seizure of the firearm was constitutional because the officer had reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts and the need to ensure officer safety while executing a search warrant.
2. The district court's finding that Patterson did not accept responsibility was not clearly erroneous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress the firearm because the pat-down search violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a reduction in sentencing guidelines points for acceptance of responsibility.

Disposition

affirmed