United States v. Darrell Dominique Pulliam

405 F.3d 782 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell Dominique PULLIAM, Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-50550. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 8, 2004. Filed April 21, 2005. Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant. Elizabeth A. Newman, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00710-TJH. Before: WALLACE, THOMAS G. NELSON, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 Following a lawful traffic stop of a car in which Defendant-Appellee Pulliam was a passenger, the police illegally detained him and the car's driver, and illegally searched the car. The search produced a gun, and Pulliam was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). 2 The government appeals from the district court's order suppressing the gun. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , and we have jurisdiction pursuant to…

Following a lawful traffic stop of a car in which Defendant-Appellee Pulliam was a passenger, the police illegally detained him and the car’s driver, and illegally searched the car. The search produced a gun, and Pulliam was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1).

The government appeals from the district court’s order suppressing the gun. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 . Because Pulliam lacks standing to object to the vehicle search, and the gun’s discovery was not the product of Pulliam’s unlawful detention, the gun should not have been suppressed. We therefore reverse and remand.

*784 I.

Officers Algren and Sambrano, both members of the Los Angeles Police Department Gang Enforcement Division, were patrolling in their vehicle through part of the city known for gang activity. Gang crime was expected because it was “Rollin’ 60’s day,” the birthday of the Rol-lin’ 60’s gang which operates in that area.

The officers stopped in front of a building Algren knew to be a gang hangout, because he had responded to calls there and had seen other…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The government concedes that the officers’ sole purpose for following, stopping, and searching the car in which the gun was found was to investigate Pulliam. Although the district court found that the officers lawfully stopped the car, it held- — • and the government concedes — that the officers unlawfully detained the car and its passengers, and unlawfully searched the car. The district court suppressed Pul-liam’s statements made while he was de *792 tained, the cash found in his pocket, and the gun, 1 ruling:

Indeed, the district court found that all of the reasons proffered by the officers to support reasonable suspicion for the detention of Richards and Pulliam and the subsequent search of the car were lies, holding:

Therefore, the only issue we are confronted with is whether a defendant may successfully move to suppress evidence found in a car in which he was a passenger where the car and its occupants were legally stopped but unlawfully detained.

Although this is an issue of first impression in our circuit, our vehicular stop cases provide a framework for resolving it. Those cases hold that although a defendant may lack the requisite…