09-4082 U.S. v. Tinnie

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Frisks; reasonable suspicion

Where a suspect was in a high crime area known for drug trafficking and gun violence, and the suspect did not answer when asked if he ha any weapons, the officer was justified in frisking him.

“In this case, the totality of the circumstances justified frisking Tinnie. The stop occurred late on a Friday night in a high-crime neighborhood. And Kaiser testified at the suppression hearing that the driveway into which Tinnie had pulled was ‘dimly lit just from road lighting.’ See, e.g., Oglesby, 597 F.3d at 893 (holding that the totality of the circumstances justified a frisk, in part, because it ‘occurred at night in a location that was known to the officers to be a high-crime area plagued by drug trafficking and gun violence’). Kaiser was part of a Special Focus Unit charged with patrolling higher crime areas and, as the district court found, was thus familiar with the risk of gun possession in that area. See United States v. Lawshea, 461 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that the experience of the officer is a factor considered in judging whether reasonable suspicion justifies a frisk). As the district court also found, Tinnie acted suspiciously by moving around nervously as the officers approached the car. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 273 F.3d 747, 748-49 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that the totality of the facts, including the defendant’s ‘movements in the car,’ justified ‘a limited patdown for weapons’). Then, after stating he had an identification card, Tinnie told Kaiser (without checking his pockets) that he did not have the identification card. See, e.g., Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061-62 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that evasive responses to police questions can help support reasonable suspicion). Tinnie also stated he was 28 and Kaiser immediately perceived that ‘with the date of birth that he had given me, he could have only been 27 at the time.’ See, e.g., United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627, 633-34 (7th Cir. 2009) (concluding that inconsistent answers to the officer’s questions was a factor supporting reasonable suspicion that a suitcase contained drugs); United States v. Thomas, 87 F.3d 909, 912 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating that defendant’s contradictory answers to simple questions was a factor supporting reasonable suspicion justifying detention of defendant’s suitcase.) And before frisking Tinnie, Kaiser asked him whether he had any weapons or drugs and Tinnie did not respond. Kaiser rephrased the question slightly, asking Tinnie ‘if he had any weapons on him, any guns, or anything that would poke my hands.’ Again, Tinnie did not respond, but when Kaiser then asked if Tinnie had any drugs on him, Tinnie immediately said no. Coupled with the earlier suspicious circumstances, Tinnie’s silence when twice asked if he had any weapons, but his immediate denial of possessing drugs, provided Kaiser with reasonable suspicion that Tinnie was armed and thus justified the frisk.”

Affirmed.

09-4082 U.S. v. Tinnie

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Reinhard, J., Manion, J.

Full Text