United States v. Jay

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court order suppressing evidence obtained during an encounter involving defendants Baker and Jay. The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, that a protective sweep of the vehicle would inevitably have revealed the firearms and drugs, and that those items supplied probable cause supporting Jay’s statements and a warrant for a related residence.

Holdings

1. The government did not waive or abandon its Terry theory because it cited Terry and argued that the officers had reasonable suspicion as well as probable cause.
2. The officers had reasonable suspicion that Baker and Jay were engaged in illegal activity involving a firearm or drugs, so they permissibly could initiate a Terry stop and question them.
3. Drawing a weapon and handcuffing the defendants were reasonable responses to legitimate officer-safety concerns and were consistent with a Terry stop under the circumstances.
4. The drugs and guns found in the Caprice were not subject to suppression because they inevitably would have been discovered during a reasonable protective sweep conducted as part of the Terry stop.
5. The evidence found in the Caprice would have given the officers probable cause to arrest both defendants and to obtain a search warrant for Foster's duplex; accordingly, Jay's statements and the evidence found in the duplex were not subject to suppression.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the government waived or abandoned reliance on Terry v. Ohio.
2. Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate and continue a Terry stop of Baker and Jay.
3. Whether drawing a weapon and handcuffing the defendants were reasonable measures within the scope of the Terry stop.
4. Whether the drugs and guns found in the Chevrolet Caprice were admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine.
5. Whether the vehicle evidence supplied probable cause for the defendants' arrests and for a search warrant covering Foster's duplex, making Jay's statements and the duplex evidence admissible.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded