D.D.C.: No REP in apt building laundry room when officer saw def in possession; take down when he resisted was reasonable

“In short, and as explained below, the Court finds that Leake’s stance in the corner of the laundry room was suspicious, and that upon approaching him, Officer Pantaleon observed Leake holding a small clear plastic baggie containing a powder-like substance. Officer Pantaleon reasonably believed that the baggie contained narcotics, and as Officer Pantaleon grabbed Leake to investigate this suspicious activity, Leake attempted to flee, which resulted in a prolonged physical struggle between the police officers and Leake. Leake was not arrested for Fourth Amendment purposes until the officers saw that he was carrying a gun on his person. And given these findings, the Court further concludes that the officers’ actions were reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. Officer Pantaleon had a reasonable articulable suspicion that justified the initial investigatory stop of Leake, and he had probable cause to arrest Leake when the gun fell out of Leake’s waistband. Moreover, Leake does not have Fourth Amendment standing to claim that the officers’ presence in the building’s laundry room constituted a constitutional violation from the outset, nor was the officers’ use of force to detain and arrest Leake unreasonable given his active resistance (which was captured clearly on the officers’ body-worn cameras and the laundry room video surveillance system). Therefore, Leake’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the officers arrested him on May 28, 2019, and, accordingly, Leake’s motion to suppress the tangible evidence recovered at the time of his arrest must be DENIED.” United States v. Leake, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112934 (D.D.C. June 26, 2020)

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.