DC: Tripping up def as he fled an encounter was a seizure without RS

D.C. gun recovery unit (GRU) officers stopped and approached defendant in an alley to talk to him. He hesitated and ran, and they ultimately caught him. The stop lacked reasonable suspicion. “Mr. Mayo argues that the GRU officers seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the gun and drugs should have been suppressed. We agree. First, we hold that Mr. Mayo was seized when the GRU officer dove to tackle him and tripped him, even though he got away. We rely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021), which effectively overruled this court’s decision in Henson v. United States, 55 A.3d 859 (D.C. 2012). Second, we hold that this seizure was unsupported by reasonable, articulable suspicion and therefore unlawful. Third, we hold that the items of physical evidence subsequently recovered by the police from Mr. Mayo’s person and in the area of the chase were fruits of this unlawful seizure that must be suppressed. Accordingly, we vacate Mr. Mayo’s convictions.” Mayo v. United States, 2022 D.C. App. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 6, 2022).

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.