Melvin Casey a/k/a Torrey Shields v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that Casey adequately preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion despite the absence of a written reservation in the plea documents. On the merits, the court concluded that the initial police encounter was consensual and that the marijuana visible in Casey’s shoe was lawfully seized under the plain-view doctrine. The court affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. A separate written reservation was not required under the particular circumstances because the plea transcript clearly showed that Casey reserved the suppression ruling, the court acknowledged the plea's conditional nature and specified the issue, and the prosecutor did not object.
2. No seizure occurred before the officer observed the marijuana because, under the circumstances credited by the trial court, the encounter was noncoercive, unintimidating, and consensual.
3. The seizure of the marijuana did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer was lawfully positioned to observe the contraband during a consensual encounter and had probable cause to recognize it as connected to criminal activity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Casey adequately preserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion when the conditional guilty plea did not contain a separate written reservation of the issue.
2. Whether the initial police encounter was consensual or instead constituted a seizure unsupported by reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause.
3. Whether the officer's seizure of the marijuana was permissible under the plain-view doctrine.

Disposition

affirmed