United States v. Murphy , 201 F. App'x 185 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JAMES MURPHY, JR., a/k/a Jerry
Robinson, a/k/a Robert B. Carey, a/k/a Robert
G. Carey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CR-05-134)
Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 26, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Ivan D.
Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani,
Research and Writing Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Willie James Murphy, Jr., pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced him to
thirty-seven months in prison. Murphy timely appealed. He
challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
We affirm.
Officer Dean Tran of the Fairfax County Police Department
responded to a dispatch call that security personnel at a Giant
Food Store in Falls Church, Virginia, were attempting to detain two
black males and a black female suspected of shoplifting. Upon
entering the store, Tran saw Murphy and another black male and a
black female arguing with a woman he recognized as a store security
officer with whom he had prior dealings and who he considered
reliable. Tran said Murphy reached for his pocket several times
and that the officer repeatedly told him to keep his hands where he
could see them. When the other officers arrived, the suspects were
asked to accompany them to the store security office for further
questioning.
Once inside the office, Murphy continued to be loud and
uncooperative. Tran decided to pat down Murphy, who was much
larger than him, before continuing the investigation. Several
officers wrestled Murphy to the wall where he was handcuffed and
patted down. Among other things, the search revealed a gun in
Murphy’s waistband. Murphy moved to suppress this evidence, which
the district court denied.
- 2 -
We review de novo legal conclusions underlying the denial
of a motion to suppress and review factual findings for clear
error. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 429 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). We view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, which prevailed below.
United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (1998). “An officer
may, 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 a 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. Id. at 123-24. 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. United States v.
Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229, 235 (1985); see also United States v.
Moore, 817 F.2d 1105, 1108 (4th Cir. 1987) (brief but complete
restriction of liberty is valid under Terry). 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.
- 3 -
1998). The standard 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, even
after correcting for inconsistencies between the officer’s version
of the events and the video surveillance tape, there was reasonable
suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and frisk.
Accordingly, 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 -