United States v. Malik Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALIK RASHAD JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-0022-D-1)
Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malik Rashad Johnson was convicted of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(2006), and sentenced to thirty-seven months’ imprisonment. He
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
We affirm.
We review the factual findings underlying a district
court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d
243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). When evaluating the denial of a
suppression motion, we construe the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government. Id.When a vehicle has been lawfully stopped, a police
officer may order a passenger to exit the vehicle and frisk that
passenger when he has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger
is armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326
(2009). Reasonable suspicion is “a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting that the person to be frisked is armed and
dangerous” and must be made using common sense and measured by a
totality of the circumstances. United States v. Powell, 666
F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2011). A person’s possible involvement
in prior criminal activity can be relevant in establishing
reasonable suspicion. Powell, 666 F.3d at 188; United States v.
Holmes, 376 F.3d 270, 278 (4th Cir. 2004). Knowledge of gang
2
affiliation is also relevant to the reasonable suspicion
analysis. Holmes, 376 F.3d at 278. We have noted that “all
roadside traffic encounters are potentially dangerous for law
enforcement officers.” Powell, 666 F.3d at 186 n.6.
Our review of the evidence presented at the
suppression hearing leads us to conclude that the information
known to the officer, considered in totality, created reasonable
suspicion that Johnson was armed and dangerous sufficient to
justify the 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
3