Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION No. 01-027, SECTION "N".
March 8, 2001.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Joseph Sutton's Motion for Suppression of Illegally Seized Evidence. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
A. BACKGROUND
On the evening of January 11, 2001, ATF Special Agent Sue Pecora and several New Orleans police officers were on patrol in the B.W. Cooper Housing Development when they observed Defendant Joseph Sutton walking toward them. Sutton grabbed his waistband, turned, and ran away from the officers, who pursued him on foot. The officers chased Sutton into a dilapidated house where he tripped and fell. As he fell, a Rugar P89 9mm semi-automatic pistol fell out of his waistband. Following a background check, the officers determined that Sutton was a convicted felon, making his possession of the handgun a crime. On February 1, 2001, a grand jury indicted Sutton on one count of felon in possession of a firearm.
B. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Sutton now moves to suppress the Rugar handgun, which the officers recovered after he fell. Sutton argues that neither the high crime nature of the neighborhood nor his flight provided the police with "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that he was committing a crime so as to justify aTerry stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The Court disagrees.
As a preliminary matter, the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is not required because Sutton does not contest the essential facts which the Government argues justified the Terry stop. See United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1983).
Turning to the merits of Sutton's claim, the Court finds the instant case analogous to Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a defendant's unprovoked flight from the police in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking justified the officers' suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, justified further investigation. The only arguably relevant difference between Wardlow and the instant case is that the officers in Wardlow were uniformed. While this distinction might be important under different facts, the Court finds it unimportant here in light of the fact that the officers also observed Sutton grabbing his waistband, an act indicative of gun possession. And although Sutton is correct that someone could run from strangers for any number of reasons, the police need not rule out every potential motivation before pursuing a fleeing suspect. When viewed in combination, Sutton's seemingly unprovoked flight in a high crime neighborhood and his apparent possession of a gun justified the officers' suspicion and pursuit. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Joseph Sutton's Motion for Suppression is DENIED.