Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Robert Hamilton’s conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that officers had probable cause to arrest Hamilton based on specific information linking him to a recent shooting, his flight after being ordered to stop, and his reaching toward his waistband. The court also rejected challenges to the jury instructions and the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officers' initial approach violated the Fourth Amendment because they allegedly intended to arrest Hamilton rather than conduct an investigatory stop.
- Whether the officers' inaccurate statement that a warrant existed rendered the initial approach unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Hamilton based on the investigation, his flight after being identified and ordered to stop, and his reaching toward his waistband.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury that the evidence was obtained legally and that it could not speculate about improper police motives.
- Whether the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense.
Holdings
- The officers' subjective intent was immaterial because Hamilton fled before submitting to their show of authority; the initial encounter involved only an attempted seizure, not an actual seizure, and therefore did not trigger the Fourth Amendment.
- The inaccurate warrant statement did not violate the Fourth Amendment under the circumstances because the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and question Hamilton, did not use deception to obtain access to evidence beyond their lawful authority, clearly acted in an official investigatory capacity, and did not arrest Hamilton at that point.
- The officers had probable cause to arrest Hamilton when they tackled him because the specific evidence connecting him to the recent shooting, his flight after officers identified themselves, his being called by name and ordered to stop, and his reaching toward his waistband together established a fair probability that he had committed a crime.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury that the evidence was obtained legally and that jurors could not speculate about improper police motives because, viewed in the context of the entire trial, the instruction did not mislead the jury, improperly guide its deliberations, or intrude on its fact-finding role.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the evidence supported its finding that Hamilton possessed the firearm in connection with marijuana dealing.
Key quotations
“Flight from law enforcement can be suggestive of wrongdoing and give rise to probable cause when coupled with specific reasons to suspect that the person fleeing may have engaged in criminal conduct.” (5)
“there is no seizure without actual submission; otherwise, there is at most an attempted seizure” (11)
“Probable cause justifying a warrantless arrest exists where, “under the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the suspect had committed a crime.”” (14)
“That said, flight is not per se suspicious.” (14)
Factual background
Police investigating a February 14, 2021 shooting developed information connecting Hamilton to the shooting through surveillance footage, vehicle and GPS records, witness information, and identification by officers familiar with him. On February 27, officers approached Hamilton, identified him by name, stated that there was a warrant for his arrest, and ordered him to stop; Hamilton immediately fled, reached toward his waistband while being pursued, and was tackled and arrested. A search after the arrest recovered a firearm, marijuana, scales, and $6,692 in cash. The district court also found that Hamilton possessed the firearm in connection with marijuana dealing.
Procedural history
Hamilton was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and a superseding indictment added possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized after his arrest, and the jury convicted him on the felon-in-possession count while acquitting him on the drug-trafficking-firearm count. The district court denied his motion for a new trial, applied a four-level Guidelines enhancement, and sentenced him to 27 months' imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.