CA8: Defendant’s flight after being approached for matching description of wanted man and admission he was holding was PC

Defendant was followed to a store by a bail bondsman looking to arrest him on outstanding warrants. The bondsman saw a police officer outside the store and enlisted his aid in the arrest. It turned out that the defendant was not the man wanted but he exactly matched the description the bondsman had developed, down to color of shirt and cornrows in his hair. The officer approached defendant and asked his name three times, which he refused to provide, and then he turned to flee, and he was Tasered. After the officer found out he was the wrong guy, he asked why he ran” “I’ve got some sh*t on me.” That led to a search incident, which was valid. 240 month sentence for crack possession affirmed. United States v. Bourrage, 08-3823 (8th Cir. January 7, 2010) (unpublished):

Here, Warner was carrying papers as she approached Sergeant Voigts. She told him that a man inside the grocery store named Rickman was wanted on misdemeanor and felony warrants and she provided a brief description of Rickman. Sergeant Voigts “could assess [Warner’s] credibility because the information was provided in person.” See United States v. Carpenter, 422 F.3d 738, 744 (8th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Kent, 531 F.3d 642, 648-49 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Salazar, 945 F.2d 47, 50-51 (2d Cir. 1991) (stating that “a face-to-face informant must, as a general matter, be thought more reliable than an anonymous telephone tipster, for the former runs the greater risk that he may be held accountable if his information proves false”). Moreover, if the tip turned out to be false, Warner could be charged with knowingly providing false information to a police officer. See Iowa Code § 718.6(1); see also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146-47 (1972). Nevertheless, Warner not only provided the information in person but accompanied Sergeant Voigts into the store to search for the suspect. After searching the store with Sergeant Voigts, Warner suddenly indicated that the suspect was in the store when she said either “There he is” or “There they go.” Under these circumstances, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Sergeant Voigts had a reasonable suspicion that Rickman was wanted in connection with a completed felony.

“Keith’s motion to suppress, though well-argued, is not well-taken.” There was plenty of reasonable suspicion to stop him, and his drug activities raised a sufficient nexus to weapons that a frisk would be justified. United States v. Keith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 795 (N.D. Ohio January 6, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.