D.C. Court of Appeals Holds Officer’s Attempt to Stop a Defendant’s Flight Was a Seizure Requiring Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
On October 26, 2016, Sergeant Jose Jaquez of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit (GRU) was riding in an unmarked car with two other officers looking for illegal weapons and patrolling in the Kenilworth neighborhood of Washington, D.C. The officers pulled into an alleyway and saw a group of 5 individuals. One of the individuals in that group, Landon Mayo, a 19-year-old Black male, separated from the group and began to speak to individual in a wheelchair while touching his waistband.
The officers got out of the vehicle, approached Mayo, and asked him if he had any guns. Mayo then began to run from the officers when Sergeant Jaquez attempted to tackle him. He managed to grab one of Mayo’s feet. Mayo was tripped up, but caught his balance and continued to run off.
Officers from a second vehicle outside of the alleyway caught Mayo, and found small, unused zip lock bags, a larger zip lock bag containing marijuana, and cash. Mayo was arrested. In Mayo’s flight path, officers also encountered a woman with a loaded handgun (which was later shown to have Mayo’s fingerprints on it) and zip lock bags (matching those on Mayo’s person) that contained marijuana in the bushes.
Before the trial court, Mayo filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming it was collected on his person as a result of an unlawful stop and search. The trial court granted Mayo’s motion. The trial court found that the officers did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Mayo and that Mayo did not have to talk to the officers if he did not want to.
The government filed a written motion for reconsideration, arguing that Mayo was in a high crime area and gesturing towards his waistband. In opposition, Mayo argued that he was seized as soon as he tried to leave the alley, when Sergeant Jaquez dove to tackle him. The trial court rejected that argument and concluded the government was correct that the officers lawfully seized and searched Mayo and the suppression ruling was not warranted.
After a trial, Mayo was found guilty of an array of drug and gun offenses. He timely appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing that he was seized when the Sergeant Jaquez dove to tackle him and tripped him, that the seizure was unsupported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, and the items recovered by the officers after the seizure should have been suppressed.
The D.C. Court of Appeals has previously rejected the argument that an unsuccessful attempt by an officer to detain an individual through the application of force constitutes a seizure. But after the parties submitted their briefs on appeal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Torres v. Madrid on the question whether “an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force [is] a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment … or [whether] physical force [must] be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a ‘seizure.’” The court held this issued in abeyance until the Supreme Court weighed in.
In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in Torres that the “slightest” contact could suffice as a seizure, but the use of force must be accompanied by the “objectively manifested … intent to restrain” and that “[a]ccidental force will not qualify” as a Fourth Amendment seizure. Under this clarification of the law, the D.C. Court of Appeals found that Sergeant Jaquez’s contact with Mayo plainly amounted to an application of force that objectively manifested an intent to restrain.
Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court found that the officer’s seizure of Mayo was not supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. The court stated that Mayo’s gestures around his waistband did not give the officers lawful basis to stop him and Mayo’s flight did not imply a consciousness of guilt. The court stated that Mayo was free to refuse to speak to the officers. The court stated that flight must be assessed in the context of specific facts to determine if the individual is attempting to flee from criminal activity.
Here, Mayo’s flight was reasonable, as the officers singled him out, called out as they closed in on him, and asked him if he had any guns. The court also acknowledged how the officers’ actions could present as frightening to a young Black person, let alone any reasonable person, in such a situation. The court concluded that Mayo’s flight contributed little to any reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
Because the seizure was unlawful, the court needed to determine whether the evidence collected must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The court found that suppression was warranted. As such, the court vacated Mayo’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Read the full case: Mayo v. United States
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.