United States v. Banks ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD DELANEY BANKS, a/k/a Floyd Banks, a/k/a
Jerry J. Banks, a/k/a Ronald Dleian Banks,
a/k/a Ronald H. Banks, a/k/a Ronald Harlain
Banks, a/k/a Delaney Banks, a/k/a King,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-05-218)
Submitted: June 14, 2006 Decided: July 6, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Nia Ayanna
Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Patrick F.
Stokes, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Delaney Banks was convicted for armed bank
robbery, using a firearm during the robbery, and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, he challenges the denial
of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his car after he
was arrested. We affirm.
The following evidence was presented at the suppression
hearing: At 9:55 a.m. on April 5, 2005, a BB&T bank branch in
Arlington, Virginia, was robbed at gunpoint. The Arlington County
Police Department issued a radio broadcast alert to its officers at
9:56 that two black men, one much older than the other and in his
sixties or seventies, had committed the robbery. The alert also
stated that one of the robbers was in dark clothing and that a gun
had been made visible during the robbery. Corporal Luke Hagloff,1
an Arlington police officer, was patrolling near the bank, and he
quickly set up surveillance at the 15th Street on-ramp to Route 1,
which leads to the 14th Street Bridge and Washington, D.C. This
position was approximately one-half mile from the BB&T Bank. While
the alert did not state that the robbers fled by car, Hagloff knew
from his experience that people who commit bank robberies in this
area often flee into Washington via the 14th Street Bridge.2
1
In the record, the Officer is referred to both as “Haglof”
and “Hagloff”.
2
Hagloff also surmised that, because one person was
significantly older, the robbers would likely flee by car.
- 2 -
From his surveillance position, Hagloff noticed Banks’
car at 10:00, because (1) there was no front license plate, which
could be a traffic violation;3 (2) there were two black males in
the car that appeared to have the age differential announced in the
broadcast message and at least one of them was in dark clothing;
(3) both men studiously avoided looking at the officer as they
drove past him; and (4) the officer saw that the car had a
fraudulent Maryland temporary license plate affixed to the rear of
the car, and Hagloff knew that criminals often use fake tags on
getaway cars. Hagloff followed the vehicle, turned on his lights
and siren, and the defendant failed to immediately stop his car.
Hagloff and Officers Pilco and Martin, who arrived on the scene,
stopped the car and approached it with guns drawn. Hagloff ordered
Banks out of the car, whereupon he was handcuffed and frisked.
During the frisk, the officers recovered a loaded gun, and Banks
was placed under arrest. The subsequent search of the car yielded
clothing matching the description of the robbers’ clothing, as well
as the exact amount of money taken from the bank and a dye pack.
Legal conclusions underlying the denial of a motion to
suppress are reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed
for clear error. United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 320 (4th
Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1056 (2005). “An officer may,
3
The parties agree that, while each of the surrounding
jurisdictions require permanent front tags, Maryland does not issue
front temporary tags.
- 3 -
consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief,
investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable
suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Illinois v. Wardlow,
528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). To
conduct a Terry stop, there must be “at least minimal level of
objective justification for making the stop.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at
123. Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch, but less
than probable cause and may be based on the collective knowledge of
officers involved in an investigation. Id. at 123-24; see also
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 232 (1985). In assessing
police conduct in a Terry stop, courts must look to the totality of
the circumstances. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989).
Officers conducting a lawful Terry stop may take steps
reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety, check for
identification, and maintain the status quo. Hensley, 469 U.S. at
229, 235; see also United States v. Moore, 817 F.2d 1105, 1108 (4th
Cir. 1987) (brief but complete restriction of liberty is valid
under Terry). Once a vehicle is properly stopped, officers are
permitted to remove passengers from the vehicle. Maryland v.
Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997). In addition, a police officer
may conduct a pat-down search of an individual stopped in a Terry
situation if he has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the
person is involved in illegal activity and is armed. United
States v. Raymond, 152 F.3d 309, 312 (4th Cir. 1998). The standard
- 4 -
justifying such a pat-down search is not onerous. United States v.
Swann, 149 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 1998).
After a careful review of the record, we find that
Hagloff had reasonable suspicion sufficient to conduct a Terry
stop. Further, because Hagloff had a reasonable suspicion that the
occupants of the car were involved in an armed robbery, the
officers were justified in drawing their weapons, removing Banks
from the car, and handcuffing and frisking him. It is undisputed
that, once the officers recovered a gun from Banks, there was
probable cause to arrest him.4
Accordingly, because the stop and brief restraint of
Banks were proper under Terry, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Banks also appears to challenge the district court’s finding
that Hagloff observed what he testified that he observed. The
court’s conclusions were not clearly erroneous.
- 5 -