D.D.C.: Handcuffing def resisting patdown didn’t make it an arrest

Officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop and patdown. His resistance justified handcuffs, and it still did not become an arrest until the gun was found. United States v. Gatling, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171825 (D.D.C. Sep. 2, 2025)*:

Here, the use of handcuffs and limited force to restrain Gatling was reasonably necessary to carry out the stop and neutralize any threat of harm. The officers had been told that Gatling was armed, Gatling resisted Officer Mekhael’s pat down, and Gatling continued to jostle with officers even after he was handcuffed. See Laing, 889 F.2d at 286 (relevant factors include “an informant’s tips that persons might be armed,” “furtive hand movements,” and “flight or attempted flight by the [suspect]”). Indeed, Gatling’s resistance impeded Officer Mekhael’s efforts to search Gatling’s satchel, an opportune place to hide a gun. Accordingly, the officers were justified in taking “necessary steps” to restrain Gatling and secure the scene so they could safely investigate. Dykes, 406 F.3d at 720. As such, their reasonable actions did not convert the Terry stop into an arrest.

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.