United States v. Mouscardy, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Mouscardy, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 11- 2356

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

REGI NALD MOUSCARDY,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Pat t i B. Sar i s, U. S. Di str i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, St ahl and Li pez,

Ci r cui t J udges.

El ai ne Pour i nski f or appel l ant .Kel l y Begg Lawr ence, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J ul y 15, 2013


2/21

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Regi nal d Mouscar dy was

char ged wi t h one count of bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) . Mouscardy moved t o suppr ess

t he f i r ear m, ar gui ng t hat i t was obt ai ned t hr ough an i l l egal sear ch

and sei zur e i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment . The di st r i ct

cour t deni ed t he mot i on, and t he j ur y convi ct ed Mouscar dy of t he

char ged of f ense. Mouscardy now appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al

of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess. Addi t i onal l y, he appeal s t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat he i s an ar med car eer cr i mi nal .

We af f i r m.

I.

The f act s, as suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, ar e as f ol l ows.

On March 11, 2010, at appr oxi mat el y 12: 30 p. m. , an i ndi vi dual

cal l ed 911 t o repor t an assaul t at t he cor ner of Bel mont and Fer r y

St r eet s on t he boundary of Ever et t and Mal den, Massachuset t s. The

cal l was r out ed t o t he Ever et t Pol i ce Depar t ment . The cal l er

r epor t ed t hat he saw a "man beat i ng up hi s gi r l f r i end or hi s wi f e, "

addi ng t hat t he man was " gi vi ng i t t o her pr et t y good. " The cal l er

al so pr ovi ded descr i pt i ons of t he man and t he woman.

The 911 di spat cher r el ayed t he i nf or mat i on t o pol i ce

of f i cer s, descr i bi ng t he i nci dent as a "possi bl e domest i c assaul t

i n pr ogr ess" on t he cor ner of Bel mont and Fer r y St r eet s. Ever et t

Pol i ce Of f i cer Mat t hew Cunni ngham and Sergeant Robert Zai no were

t he f i r st t o r espond. When t he of f i cer s ar r i ved, t hey f ound a man

-2-


3/21

and a woman who f i t t he descr i pt i ons gi ven by t he 911 cal l er . The

man was l at er determi ned t o be Regi nal d Mouscardy. Because the

of f i cer s bel i eved t hat t he al l eged assaul t may have occur r ed on t he

Mal den si de of Bel mont St r eet , Of f i cer Cunni ngham had Ever et t

di spat ch cont act Mal den Pol i ce and r equest t hat t hey r espond t o t he

scene.

Due t o t he nat ur e of t he 911 cal l , t he Ever et t of f i cer s

separ at ed Mouscar dy and the woman i n or der t o see whet her t hey

woul d pr ovi de consi st ent account s of t he al l eged i nci dent . Of f i cer

Cunni ngham t ook Mouscar dy around t he corner t o t he Mal den si de of

Bel mont St r eet , where Mouscar dy of f ered t hat not hi ng had happened

and t hat t her e was no pr obl em. Of f i cer Cunni nghamdi d not quest i on

Mouscar dy at t hi s poi nt .

Af t er a br i ef per i od - - Of f i cer Cunni nghamt est i f i ed t hat

i t was t wo t o t hr ee mi nut es af t er hi s i ni t i al cont act wi t h

Mouscar dy and t he woman - - Mal den Pol i ce Of f i cer Rober t Sel f r i dge

ar r i ved on t he scene. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge f i r st spoke wi t h Ser geant

Zai no and t he woman, who gave her name as Shannon Agnew. Agnew,

who appear ed upset , t ol d Of f i cer Sel f r i dge that not hi ng had

happened and t hat t here had been no assaul t . She i ndi cat ed t hat

she knew Mouscar dy and t hat she had been i n a r el at i onshi p wi t h hi m

f or about t hr ee mont hs, but she di d not pr ovi de hi s name to t he

of f i cers. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge t est i f i ed t hat hi s i nt eract i on wi t h

Ser geant Zai no and Agnew l ast ed about t hi r t y- f i ve t o f or t y seconds.

-3-


4/21

Of f i cer Sel f r i dge then went ar ound t he cor ner t o

i nt er vi ew Mouscar dy. Mouscar dy had hi s back agai nst t he wal l of a

bui l di ng, and Of f i cer Cunni nghamwas t o Mouscar dy' s l ef t . Of f i cer

Sel f r i dge f i r st asked Of f i cer Cunni ngham i f Mouscar dy had

i dent i f i ed hi msel f ; Of f i cer Cunni nghami nf or med hi mt hat Mouscar dy

r ef used t o gi ve hi s name. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge t hen asked Mouscardy

f or hi s name or any f or m of i dent i f i cat i on numer ous t i mes, but

Mouscar dy r ef used t o compl y, si mpl y r epeat i ng that nothi ng had

happened.

Mouscar dy had gr own vi si bl y "agi t ated and f i dget y" by

t hi s poi nt , and he had begun "eye- bal l i ng" t he ar ea. Keepi ng hi s

r i ght hand i n hi s r i ght j acket pocket , Mouscar dy began t o ci r cl e

away f r om t he wal l of t he bui l di ng unt i l he was al most st andi ng on

t he st r eet . Mouscar dy' s act i ons and demeanor made Of f i cer

Sel f r i dge uncomf or t abl e, and he asked Of f i cer Cunni ngham i f

Mouscar dy had been pat t ed down. Af t er Of f i cer Cunni ngham t ol d

Of f i cer Sel f r i dge t hat he had not per f or med a pat - down, Of f i cer

Sel f r i dge i nf or med Mouscardy t hat he was goi ng t o sear ch hi m f or

weapons, and asked hi m t o t ake hi s r i ght hand out of hi s j acket

pocket . Mouscar dy di d not compl y. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge i ni t i at ed t he

pat - down. When hi s l ef t hand r eached Mouscar dy' s r i ght j acket

pocket , Mouscar dy r emoved hi s r i ght hand f r omt he pocket and st r uck

Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s l ef t hand wi t h enough f or ce t o t hr ow i t above

Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s shoul der . Of f i cer Sel f r i dge t hen at t empt ed t o

-4-


5/21

r et ur n hi s l ef t hand t o Mouscar dy' s r i ght j acket pocket , and

Mouscar dy at t empt ed t o sl ap i t away agai n. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge

managed t o grab t he pocket , but Mouscar dy then t urned away and

st ar t ed t o f l ee. Al t hough t he st i t chi ng t or e sl i ght l y, t he

cont ent s of t he pocket r emai ned encl osed and theref ore unknown to

t he of f i cer s.

Of f i cers Cunni nghamand Sel f r i dge gave chase as Mouscar dy

f l ed on f oot . Of f i cer Sel f r i dge est i mat ed t hat he was wi t hi n t en

t o twel ve f eet of Mouscar dy t hr oughout t he pur sui t , whi l e Of f i cer

Cunni ngham f ol l owed sl i ght l y behi nd. As Mouscardy r an up t he

dr i veway of a r esi dence on Ri ch St r eet i n Ever et t , Of f i cer

Cunni ngham r an t o t he r i ght si de of t he house i n an appar ent

at t empt t o bl ock Mouscar dy' s pat h of escape whi l e Of f i cer Sel f r i dge

r emai ned on Mouscardy' s heel s.

Dur i ng t he chase, Of f i cer Sel f r i dge not i ced t hat

Mouscar dy was st r uggl i ng t o remove somet hi ng f r omhi s r i ght pocket .

Mouscar dy managed t o successf ul l y r emove t he obj ect , whi ch he t hen

t r ansf er r ed f r om hi s r i ght hand t o hi s l ef t hand. Of f i cer

Sel f r i dge observed t hat t he obj ect was a smal l handgun. I n order

t o al er t Of f i cer Cunni ngham, Of f i cer Sel f r i dge scr eamed "he' s got

a gun" as he cont i nued hi s pur sui t . Mouscar dy di sappeared behi nd

t he Ri ch St r eet r esi dence, and Of f i cer Sel f r i dge, now knowi ng t hat

Mouscar dy was ar med, drew hi s weapon and maneuvered car ef ul l y

around t he cor ner of t he house, wher e he observed Mouscardy

-5-


6/21

at t empt i ng t o scal e a chai n- l i nk f ence wi t h t he pi st ol st i l l i n

hand. Of f i cer Cunni nghamj oi ned Of f i cer Sel f r i dge i n t he back yar d

of t he r esi dence.

Af t er sever al commands f r om pol i ce to dr op the gun,

Mouscar dy f i nal l y pl aced t he pi st ol on t op of a gr een pl ast i c

cont ai ner and wal ked t oward t he of f i cer s. A st r uggl e ensued when

t he of f i cer s at t empt ed to handcuf f Mouscardy pur suant t o an ar r est ,

but he was event ual l y r est r ai ned near t he basement door of t he

r esi dence. Of f i cer s r et r i eved t he gun, whi ch was det er mi ned t o be

a . 32 cal i ber Ber et t a. Mouscar dy' s t r ue i dent i t y was di scover ed

when he was booked at t he pol i ce st at i on.

On March 31, 2010, a gr and j ur y r etur ned an i ndi ct ment

agai nst Mouscar dy on a charge of bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a

f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) . Mouscar dy moved t o

suppr ess t he gun, ar gui ng t hat ( 1) he had been i l l egal l y sei zed

af t er bot h he and Agnew t ol d of f i cer s t hat no assaul t had occur r ed;

( 2) t he pat - down sear ch was unconst i t ut i onal ; and ( 3) hi s f l i ght

f r om t he of f i cer s coul d not t r i gger a r easonabl e suspi ci on of

cr i mi nal act i vi t y because i t was spur r ed by t he unconst i t ut i onal

pat - down sear ch. Fol l owi ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he di st r i ct

cour t deni ed t he mot i on. The cour t f ound t hat i t di d not have t o

address Mouscardy' s ar gument s, as t he gun was di scover ed t hrough a

sour ce i ndependent of t he al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal means: by

st r i ki ng Of f i cer Sel f r i dge dur i ng t he pat - down, Mouscar dy' s act i ons

-6-


7/21

vi ol at ed Massachuset t s cr i mi nal l aw, and t he of f i cer s wer e

t her ef or e j ust i f i ed i n chasi ng and ar r est i ng hi m. The weapon was

t her ef or e r ecover ed i nci dent t o a l awf ul ar r est . Uni t ed St at es v.

Mouscardy, No. 10- 10100- PBS, 2011 WL 2600550, at *2 (D. Mass. J une

28, 2011) .

The case pr oceeded t o t r i al . On J ul y 26, 2011, t he j ury

f ound Mouscar dy gui l t y. He was sent enced t o t went y years i n pr i son

as an ar med car eer cr i mi nal and f i ve year s of super vi sed r el ease.

Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

Mouscar dy ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng

hi s mot i on t o suppr ess. We r evi ew t he deni al of a mot i on t o

suppr ess f or cl ear er r or as t o f i ndi ngs of f act . Uni t ed St at es v.

I nf ant e, 701 F. 3d 386, 392 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . We r evi ew de novo any

concl usi ons of l aw, as wel l as t he appl i cat i on of l aw t o f act s.

I d.

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t based i t s deni al on t he

gr ound that t he weapon was r ecover ed i nci dent t o a l awf ul arr est

f or st r i ki ng a pol i ce of f i cer , " [ w] e may af f i rm t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on on any gr ound made mani f est i n t he r ecord. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d 33, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Because we

f i nd t hat bot h t he i nvest i gat or y st op and t he pat - f r i sk wer e

permi ss i bl e, we need not determi ne whether t he gun was al so

admi ssi bl e under t he t heor y used by t he di st r i ct cour t .

-7-


8/21

The Four t h Amendment ' s prot ect i ons agai nst "unr easonabl e

searches and sei zures" by t he government "ext end t o br i ef

i nvest i gat or y st ops of per sons . . . t hat f al l shor t of t r adi t i onal

ar r est . " Uni t ed St at es v. Ar vi zu, 534 U. S. 266, 273 ( 2002) . These

"br i ef i nvest i gat or y st ops" ar e commonl y ref er r ed t o as Ter r y

st ops. See Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968) . A Ter r y st op i s, i n

essence, "a br i ef det ent i on of an i ndi vi dual f or quest i oni ng based

on a pol i ce of f i cer ' s r easonabl e suspi ci on t hat t he per son i s or

has been engaged i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Br ake,

666 F. 3d 800, 804 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Because the t emporary det ent i on

of an i ndi vi dual const i t ut es a sei zur e f or Four t h Amendment

pur poses, a Ter r y st op i s "subj ect t o t he const i t ut i onal i mper at i ve

t hat i t must be r easonabl e under al l t he ci r cumst ances. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Copl i n, 463 F. 3d 96, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Romai n, 393 F. 3d 63, 70- 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on mark omi t t ed) .

Our r evi ew of a Ter r y st op i nvol ves a t wo- st ep anal ysi s.

Fi r st , we ascer t ai n whet her t he st op was j ust i f i ed at i t s

i ncept i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Gat es, 709 F. 3d 58, 62 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . Second, we determi ne whether t he "act i ons under t aken dur i ng

t he st op [ wer e] r easonabl y r el at ed i n scope t o t he st op i t sel f

' unl ess t he pol i ce [ had] a basi s f or expandi ng t hei r

i nvest i gat i on. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hender son, 463 F. 3d

27, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) .

-8-


9/21

A. Initiation of the Stop

Mouscardy mai nt ai ns t hat he was i l l egal l y sei zed f or

Four t h Amendment pur poses. I n Mouscardy' s vi ew, based on t he

of f i cer s' observat i ons at t he scene and t he st atement s by Mouscar dy

and Agnew t hat no assaul t had t aken pl ace, t he pol i ce shoul d have

det er mi ned t hat t her e was no evi dence of t he al l eged assaul t , and

Mouscardy shoul d have been al l owed t o l eave.

The f act s suppor t a r easonabl e suspi ci on f or t he

i nvest i gator y st op. Of f i cer Cunni ngham and Ser geant Zai no di d not

approach Mouscar dy and Agnew on a mere "hunch. " See Uni t ed St at es

v. Sokol ow, 490 U. S. 1, 7 ( 1989) ( "The of f i cer . . . [ maki ng t he

Ter r y st op] must be abl e t o ar t i cul at e somet hi ng mor e t han an

' i nchoat e and unpar t i cul ar i zed suspi ci on or hunch. ' " ( quot i ng

Ter r y, 392 U. S. at 27) ) . The of f i cer s f ound Mouscar dy and Agnew at

t he l ocat i on t hat t he cal l er had pr ovi ded no mor e t han a f ew

mi nut es af t er t he Ever et t Pol i ce Depart ment r ecei ved t he 911 cal l

r epor t i ng t he assaul t . I n hi s own r eci t at i on of t he f act s

pr esent ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , Mouscar dy of f er s t hat t he 911

cal l er "descr i bed t he physi cal appearances of t he mal e and f emal e

i nvol ved i n t he al l eged assaul t . . . . When [ t he of f i cer s] arr i ved

t hey saw t wo i ndi vi dual s who matched t he descr i pt i on. " These f act s

al one ar e suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat t he of f i cer s had an

obj ect i vel y r easonabl e basi s f or suspect i ng wr ongdoi ng on t he par t

of Mouscar dy. See Uni t ed St ates v. Par due, 385 F. 3d 101, 105 ( 1st

-9-


10/21

Ci r . 2004) ( f i ndi ng st op r easonabl e at i t s i ncept i on wher e of f i cer

"knew t hat a domest i c assaul t had been commi t t ed i n t he vi ci ni t y,

t hat i t had been commi t t ed by someone whose physi cal descr i pt i on

mat ched t hat of t he i ndi vi dual he saw, and t hat t he assai l ant had

depar t ed f r om t he scene on f oot " ) .

B. Scope of the Stop

Havi ng det er mi ned t hat " t he of f i cer [ s' ] act i ons wer e

j ust i f i ed at t hei r i ncept i on, " we now consi der "whether t he

of f i cer [ s' ] subsequent act i ons wer e f ai r l y responsi ve t o the

emer gi ng t abl eau. " Uni t ed St at es v. Chhi en, 266 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st

Ci r . 2001) . Mouscardy chal l enges bot h t he dur at i on of t he st op and

t he l egal i t y of t he f r i sk. We consi der bot h ar gument s i n t ur n.

1. Duration of the Stop

Mouscar dy ar gues t hat t he st op was unnecessar i l y

pr ol onged. Whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat "[ a] l awf ul Ter r y st op may . . .

met amor phose i nt o an over l y pr ol onged . . . det ent i on ( and, t hus,

become unl awf ul ) , " Uni t ed St at es v. Lee, 317 F. 3d 26, 31 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) , t he l engt h of t he st op i n t hi s case was not unr easonabl e.

Af t er separat i ng Mouscar dy and Agnew, Of f i cer Cunni ngham

st ood wi t h Mouscar dy and wai t ed f or t he arr i val of t he Mal den

of f i cer s. Accor di ng t o Of f i cer Cunni ngham, no quest i oni ng t ook

pl ace dur i ng t hi s t i me. When Of f i cer Sel f r i dge ar r i ved, he br i ef l y

asked Mouscar dy quest i ons r el ated t o t he r epor t ed domest i c assaul t

and at t empt ed t o l ear n Mouscardy' s i dent i t y. Of f i cer Cunni ngham

-10-


11/21

t est i f i ed t hat Of f i cer Sel f r i dge ar r i ved on t he scene wi t hi n t wo t o

t hr ee mi nut es of hi s i ni t i al cont act wi t h Mouscar dy, and t hat

Mouscardy began hi s f l i ght ( and t hus ef f ect i vel y ended t he Ter r y

st op) "maybe thr ee mi nut es" af t er Of f i cer Sel f r i dge ar r i ved.

Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s t est i mony t hat Mouscar dy f l ed wi t hi n a mi nut e

and a hal f t o t hr ee mi nut es of hi s ar r i val suppor t s Of f i cer

Cunni ngham' s ver si on of t he event s.

Based on t hese f act s, i t i s appar ent t hat t he st op was

br i ef . Al t hough not di sposi t i ve al one, t he r el at i ve br evi t y of t he

det ai nment suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat Mouscardy' s sei zur e di d not

exceed t he boundar i es of a per mi ssi bl e Ter r y st op. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Rabbi a, 699 F. 3d 85, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( no de f act o

ar r est wher e suspect was det ai ned f or t hi r t y mi nut es) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Teemer , 394 F. 3d 59, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( no de f act o

ar r est wher e suspect was det ai ned f or "sl i ght l y over 30 mi nut es" ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Qui nn, 815 F. 2d 153, 156 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( no de

f act o ar r est wher e pol i ce i nt er r ogat ed suspect f or t went y t o

t went y- f i ve mi nut es) .

I n addi t i on t o t he over al l br evi t y of t he st op, t her e i s

no evi dence t hat i t was unr easonabl y pr ol onged. When assessi ng t he

appr opr i at eness of t he dur at i on of an i nvest i gat or y st op, we ask

"whet her t he l engt h of [ t he] det ent i on was r easonabl e, consi der i ng

' t he l aw enf orcement pur poses t o be ser ved by the st op . . . and

whet her t he pol i ce di l i gent l y pur sued a means of i nvest i gat i on t hat

-11-


12/21

was l i kel y t o conf i r m or di spel t hei r suspi ci ons qui ckl y, dur i ng

whi ch t i me i t was necessar y t o det ai n t he def endant . ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Acost a- Col on, 157 F. 3d 9, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( omi ssi on i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. McCar t hy, 77 F. 3d 522, 530 ( 1st

Ci r . 1996) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Shar pe, 470 U. S. 675, 686

( 1985) . Her e t he of f i cer s' pur pose f or st oppi ng and quest i oni ng

Mouscardy was t o i nvest i gat e t he repor t ed domest i c assaul t .

Of f i cer Sel f r i dge t est i f i ed t hat as par t of i nvest i gat i ng such

domest i c i nci dent s, he i dent i f i es t he par t i es i n or der t o det er mi ne

whet her t he i ndi vi dual s have any out st andi ng ar r est war r ant s or

r est r ai ni ng or der s. I t i s undeni abl y bot h appr opr i at e and

i mpor t ant f or an of f i cer t o t ake st eps t o i dent i f y t he par t i es

i nvol ved i n a domest i c di sput e. See Hi i bel v. Si xt h J udi ci al Di st .

Cour t of Nev. , 542 U. S. 177, 186 ( 2004) ( " I dent i t y may pr ove

par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant . . . wher e t he pol i ce ar e i nvest i gat i ng

what appear s t o be a domest i c assaul t . Of f i cer s cal l ed t o

i nvest i gate domest i c di sput es need t o know whom t hey ar e deal i ng

wi t h i n or der t o assess t he si t uat i on, t he t hr eat t o t hei r own

saf et y, and possi bl e danger t o t he pot ent i al vi ct i m. ") . The "means

of i nvest i gat i on" Of f i cer Sel f r i dge used t o gai n t hi s i nf or mat i on

coul d not have been more st r ai ght f orward: he asked Mouscar dy hi s

name. Mouscardy, however , r ef used t o r eveal hi s i dent i t y or

pr oduce any f or mof i dent i f i cat i on. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge asked agai n,

and agai n Mouscar dy r ef used. Of f i cer Sel f r i dge t est i f i ed t hat he

-12-


13/21

asked Mouscar dy t o i dent i f y hi msel f or pr oduce i dent i f i cat i on hal f

a dozen t i mes, t o no avai l .

We have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat i n eval uat i ng a cl ai m of

unr easonabl e pr ol ongat i on of an i nvest i gat i ve st op, t he f act t hat

a suspect ' s r esponses t o the of f i cer ' s quest i ons " wer e evasi ve and,

at t i mes, def i ant i s r el evant i n eval uat i ng t he scope of t he

of f i cer [ ' s] conduct . " McCar t hy, 77 F. 3d at 531. Mouscar dy' s

unr esponsi veness t o Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s r easonabl e i nqui r i es

pr event ed t he of f i cer s f r om compl et i ng t hei r i nvest i gat i on mor e

qui ckl y. Mouscar dy cannot pr of i t f r omt he del ay he hi msel f caused.

See Shar pe, 470 U. S. at 688 ( r ej ect i ng cont ent i on t hat t went y-

mi nut e st op was unr easonabl e wher e of f i cer s act ed di l i gent l y and

t he "suspect ' s act i ons cont r i but e[ d] t o t he added del ay about whi ch

he compl ai n[ ed] " ) .

2. The Frisk

Mouscar dy ar gues t hat even i f t he i nvest i gatory st op was

j ust i f i ed, Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s at t empt t o conduct a pat - f r i sk was

not . Accor di ng t o Mouscar dy, Of f i cer Sel f r i dge i ni t i at ed t he f r i sk

i n the absence of a reasonabl e bel i ef t hat Mouscar dy was ar med and

dangerous.

As Mouscar dy cor r ect l y not es, "we have hel d that a de

f act o ar r est occur s when ' a reasonabl e man i n the suspect ' s

posi t i on woul d have under st ood hi s s i t uat i on, i n t he ci r cumst ances

t hen obt ai ni ng, t o be t ant amount t o bei ng under ar r est . ' " Uni t ed

-13-


14/21

St at es v. J ones, 700 F. 3d 615, 624 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St ates v. Zapata, 18 F. 3d 971, 975 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) . However , we

have al so made cl ear t hat " i n maki ng thi s assessment , we . . . must

keep i n mi nd t hat pol i ce conduct i ng a Ter r y st op ar e ent i t l ed t o

t ake r easonabl e measur es t o pr otect t hei r own saf et y and t aki ng

such measur es does not t r ansf or ma Ter r y st op i nt o an ar r est . " I d;

see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Pont oo, 666 F. 3d 20, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( "I n a wor l d f r aught wi t h per i l , of f i cer saf et y must have a pl ace

at t he f or ef r ont of pol i ce wor k. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mohamed, 630

F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( not i ng t hat dur i ng a Ter r y stop,

"[ o] f f i cer s ar e per mi t t ed t o t ake act i ons t o pr ot ect t hei r own

saf et y and t he saf et y of ot her s i n t he ar ea" ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Wal ker , 924 F. 2d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( "[ An of f i cer ' s] concer n[ ]

f or hi s own saf et y i s of par amount i mpor t ance i n assessi ng t he

appr opr i ateness of t he act i on t aken. " ) . These r easonabl e measur es

i ncl ude "conduct i ng a pat - f r i sk i f under al l t he ci r cumst ances t hey

have ' a par t i cul ar i zed and obj ect i ve basi s t o suspect t he

i ndi vi dual ha[ s] a weapon. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Dancy, 640 F. 3d 455,

461 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Mohamed, 630

F. 3d at 6) ; see al so Ar i zona v. J ohnson, 555 U. S. 323, 326- 27

( 2009) ( "[ T] o pr oceed f r om a st op t o a f r i sk, t he pol i ce of f i cer

must r easonabl y suspect t hat t he person st opped i s ar med and

danger ous. " ) .

-14-


15/21

Her e t he f act s demonst r at e t hat Of f i cer Sel f r i dge act ed

r easonabl y out of a concer n f or hi s and t he ot her of f i cer s' saf et y

i n i ni t i at i ng t he f r i sk. The of f i cer s wer e r espondi ng t o a r epor t

of a man beat i ng a woman i n t he st r eet . When an of f i cer has a

r easonabl e suspi ci on t hat a cr i me of vi ol ence has occur r ed, " t he

same i nf or mat i on t hat wi l l suppor t an i nvest i gat or y st op wi l l

wi t hout mor e suppor t a f r i sk. " Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 270 F. 3d

30, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( emphasi s added) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Sanchez, 519 F. 3d 1208, 1211, 1216 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng that

pol i ce of f i cer s r easonabl y suspect ed occupant of car mi ght be armed

and dangerous based i n par t on wi t ness r epor t t hat occupant had

j ust punched a woman i n t he f ace) . The f act t hat Mouscar dy was

suspect ed t o have commi t t ed a vi ol ent cr i me i s t her ef or e hi ghl y

r el evant i n our det er mi nat i on of whet her Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s

suspi ci ons wer e r easonabl e.

Mouscardy' s conduct and di sposi t i on dur i ng t he st op al so

suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat t he f r i sk was j ust i f i ed. As di scussed

above, Mouscardy r epeat edl y r ef used t o i dent i f y hi msel f , see Uni t ed

St at es v. Campbel l , 549 F. 3d 364, 372 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hat

passenger ' s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de i dent i f i cat i on, "possi bl y t o conceal

hi s i dent i t y, " was f act or t hat coul d be consi der ed i n det er mi ni ng

whet her pat - down dur i ng Ter r y st op was appr opr i ate) , and r ef used t o

r emove hi s hand f r omhi s pocket despi t e sever al r equest s by Of f i cer

Sel f r i dge, see Uni t ed St at es v. Dubose, 579 F. 3d 117, 122 ( 1st Ci r .

-15-


16/21

2009) ( suspect ' s r ef usal t o r emove hi s hand f r om hi s pocket was

f act or suppor t i ng of f i cer ' s r easonabl e suspi ci on t hat suspect was

armed and dangerous) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Soar es, 521 F. 3d 117, 121

( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( suspect ' s r ef usal t o heed of f i cer ' s or der s t o keep

hi s hands vi si bl e cont r i but ed t o of f i cer ' s r easonabl e suspi ci on) . 1

Addi t i onal l y, as t he st op pr ogr essed, Mouscar dy became agi t ated and

ner vous, movi ng around and "eye- bal l i ng" t he area. Al t hough

ner vous behavi or al one i s not suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he

r easonabl e suspi ci on necessary f or a pat - f r i sk, see Uni t ed St at es

v. McKoy, 428 F. 3d 38, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Spi nner , 475 F. 3d 356, 360 ( D. C. Ci r . 2007) ( " [ T] he suspi ci on

t hat someone i s ar med . . . must be based upon somet hi ng mor e t han

hi s mer e ner vousness. A per son st opped by t he pol i ce i s ent i t l ed

t o be nervous wi t hout t her eby suggest i ng he i s ar med and dangerous

. . . . ") , such behavi or i s a r el evant f act or t o be consi der ed

al ong wi t h ot her s i n assessi ng t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances,

see Uni t ed St ates v. Chaney, 584 F. 3d 20, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . 2

1 I ndeed, some ci r cui t s have hel d t hat a suspect ' s r ef usal t or emove hi s hand f r om hi s pocket dur i ng a val i d Ter r y st op i s al onesuf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y a pr ot ecti ve f r i sk. See Uni t ed St at es v.Cor nel i us, 391 F. 3d 965, 968 ( 8t h Ci r . 2004) ( f r i sk j ust i f i ed wher esuspect pl aced hi s hand i n hi s j acket pocket t hen r ef used t o r emovei t ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Har r i s, 313 F. 3d 1228, 1236 ( 10t h Ci r . 2002)

( "When Def endant r ef used t o remove hi s hands [ f r om hi s pocket s] ,[ t he of f i cer ] was r easonabl y j ust i f i ed i n bel i evi ng t hat Def endantmi ght be armed and danger ous. " ) .

2 As wel l as pr ovi di ng suppor t f or Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' sdeci si on t o per f or m a pat - f r i sk, Mouscar dy' s ner vous, agi t at edbehavi or suppor t ed Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s i ni t i al r equest s t hat

-16-


17/21

Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t hat , i n l i ght of t he t ot al i t y

of t he ci r cumst ances, Of f i cer Sel f r i dge had a r easonabl e suspi ci on

t hat Mouscar dy mi ght be ar med and danger ous, t hus j ust i f yi ng hi s

i ni t i at i on of the f r i sk.

III.

Mouscar dy mai nt ai ns t hat hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght s were

vi ol at ed when t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced hi m as an ar med car eer

cr i mi nal because t he pr edi cat e of f enses on whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t

r el i ed ar e not cat egor i cal l y vi ol ent f el oni es under t he Ar med

Career Cr i mi nal Act ( "ACCA") , and because t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

pr esent document s t hat suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat hi s pr edi cat e

of f enses wer e i n f act vi ol ent . We r evi ew de novo whet her t he

convi ct i ons upon whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed cat egor i cal l y

qual i f y as ACCA pr edi cat e of f enses. Har t , 674 F. 3d at 40.

To be el i gi bl e f or an ACCA enhancement , Mouscar dy "had t o

have been convi ct ed of t hr ee pr i or vi ol ent f el oni es, ser i ous dr ug

of f enses, or a combi nat i on t her eof . " I d. ; see 18 U. S. C.

924( e) ( 1) . A "vi ol ent f el ony" i s def i ned by t he st at ut e as

any cr i me puni shabl e by i mpr i sonment f or at er m exceedi ng one year . . . t hat - -

( i ) has as an el ement t he use,at t empt ed use, or t hr eatened use of physi calf or ce agai nst t he per son of anot her ; or

Mouscardy r emove hi s hand f r om hi s pocket . Consi der i ng t het ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, Of f i cer Sel f r i dge' s r equest s wer er easonabl e and di d not i mper mi ssi bl y expand t he scope of t he st op.

-17-


18/21

( i i ) i s bur gl ar y, ar son, or ext or t i on,i nvol ves use of expl osi ves, or ot her wi sei nvol ves conduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ouspot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t oanot her [ . ]

18 U. S. C. 924( e) ( 2) ( B) . We have r ef er r ed t o t he f i r st cl ause as

t he " f or ce cl ause, " and t he por t i on of t he second cl ause f ol l owi ng

t he enumer at ed of f enses as t he " r esi dual cl ause. " Har t , 674 F. 3d

at 41.

"Under ei t her cl ause, we t ake a cat egor i cal appr oach i n

det er mi ni ng whet her a convi ct i on qual i f i es as an ACCA pr edi cat e

of f ense, meani ng we ' consi der onl y t he of f ense' s l egal def i ni t i on,

f orgoi ng any i nqui r y i nto how t he def endant may have commi t t ed t he

of f ense. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252,

256 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) . I n det er mi ni ng t he of f ense' s l egal

def i ni t i on, st at e cour t const r ucti ons of t he appl i cabl e st at e

st at ut es cont r ol . I d. I f t he st at ut es "subsume[ ] onl y ACCA

pr edi cat e of f enses, " we need go no f ur t her . I d. ( emphasi s added) .

However , when a def endant i s convi ct ed under a st at ut e t hat covers

mul t i pl e of f enses, "a cour t may l ook t o a r est r i ct ed set of

document s ( e. g. , i ndi ct ment , pl ea col l oquy, j ur y i nst r uct i ons) t o

ascer t ai n whi ch of t he mul t i pl e of f enses ser ved as the of f ense of

convi ct i on. " Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d at 257. These document s ar e known

as " Shepard

document s. " Hart , 674 F. 3d at 41 ( ci t i ng Shepard v.

Uni t ed St ates, 544 U. S. 13, 26 ( 2005) ) . " I f t he Shepard document s

pr ove i nconcl usi ve, such t hat t he cour t cannot ascer t ai n t he

-18-


19/21

of f ense of convi ct i on, t he convi ct i on cannot qual i f y as an ACCA

pr edi cat e. " I d.

The present ence r epor t cl assi f i ed seven of Mouscar dy' s

pr i or convi ct i ons as ACCA pr edi cat es: ( 1) a 1997 convi ct i on f or

possessi on of crack cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e and r esi st i ng

ar r est ; ( 2) a 1999 convi ct i on f or assaul t and bat t er y wi t h a

dangerous weapon ( "ABDW") ; ( 3) a 2000 convi ct i on f or assaul t and

bat t er y on a pol i ce of f i cer ( "ABPO") and r esi st i ng ar r est ; ( 4) a

2002 convi ct i on f or assaul t wi t h a danger ous weapon ( kni f e)

( "ADW") ; ( 5) a 2002 convi ct i on f or ABPO and ABDW; ( 6) a 2003

convi ct i on f or ABPO, ADW( kni f e) , and r esi st i ng ar r est ; ( 7) a 2005

convi ct i on f or di st r i but i on of crack cocai ne. 3 Mouscar dy ar gues

t hat , because t he Massachuset t s cr i me of ABDW can be commi t t ed

r eckl essl y, i t i s not a cat egor i cal l y vi ol ent f el ony under t he

ACCA. He al so ur ges us to r econsi der our pr i or deci si ons hol di ng

t hat ABPO and r esi st i ng ar r est ar e cat egor i cal l y vi ol ent f el oni es

under t he ACCA. Mouscar dy r el i es gener al l y on our opi ni on i n

Hol l oway, where we hel d t hat t he Massachuset t s cr i me of si mpl e

assaul t and bat t er y was not a cat egor i cal l y vi ol ent f el ony because

i t can be commi t t ed r eckl essl y. 630 F. 3d at 262.

3 At sent enci ng, t here was some di sput e as t o whetherMouscar dy' s 2005 convi ct i on f or di st r i but i on of cr ack cocai ne wasf i nal . The di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o consi der t hat convi cti on i ndet ermi ni ng whet her Mouscardy qual i f i ed f or t he ACCA enhancement ,concl udi ng t hat " [ i ] t ' s i r r el evant because of t he huge number s ofassaul t and bat t er y wi t h a danger ous weapon [ convi ct i ons] and t heassaul t and bat t er i es on a pol i ce of f i cer . "

-19-


20/21

The l aw of t he ci r cui t doct r i ne f or ecl oses Mouscar dy' s

chal l enge. Pur suant t o t hat doct r i ne, we ar e "bound by a pr i or

panel deci si on, absent any i nt er veni ng aut hor i t y. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Gr upee, 682 F. 3d 143, 149 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I n Uni t ed St at es v.

Har t - - a case deci ded af t er Hol l oway - - we hel d t hat a

Massachuset t s convi ct i on f or ABDW cat egor i cal l y appl i es as a

pr edi cat e of f ense under 18 U. S. C. 924( e) ( 2) ( B) ( i i ) . 674 F. 3d at

44, cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 228 ( 2012) . I n Uni t ed St at es v.

Dancy, another case deci ded post - Hol l oway, we hel d t hat t he

Massachuset t s cr i me of ABPO i s cat egor i cal l y a vi ol ent f el ony under

t he ACCA. 640 F. 3d at 468- 70. Because Mouscar dy has f ai l ed t o

i dent i f y any super veni ng aut hor i t y that woul d cast doubt on t he

val i di t y of Har t or Dancy, hi s chal l enges t o t he desi gnat i on of hi s

ABDW and ABPO convi ct i ons as val i d ACCA pr edi cat es are bar r ed by

t he l aw of t he ci r cui t doct r i ne.

Consi der i ng onl y hi s ABDWand ABPO convi ct i ons, Mouscar dy

has f our qual i f yi ng pr edi cat es, one mor e t han i s r equi r ed f or an

ACCA enhancement . We t heref ore concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

di d not er r i n sent enci ng Mouscar dy as an armed career cr i mi nal . 4

4 Mouscardy devot es a shor t par agr aph i n hi s br i ef t o theargument t hat t he resi dual cl ause of t he Ar med Career Cr i mi nal Actshoul d be consi der ed voi d f or vagueness. Thi s ar gument i s pl ai nl yf or ecl osed by Supreme Cour t precedent and our own. See Sykes v.Uni t ed St ates, 131 S. Ct . 2267, 2277 ( 2011) ; J ames v. Uni t edSt at es, 550 U. S. 192, 210 n. 6 ( 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hart , 674F. 3d 33, 41 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

-20-


21/21

IV.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m Mouscar dy' s

convi ct i on and sent ence.

So ordered.

-21-

United States v. Mouscardy, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Mouscardy, 1st Cir. (2013)