United States v. Curtis Coleman

MEMORANDUM

Curtis Lee Coleman appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that the district court should have suppressed his gun and his statements about the gun because they were obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. We affirm.

1. The investigatory stop was lawful under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Coleman was trespassing or about to trespass on private property.

2. Even assuming the officers’ attempt to frisk Coleman was unlawful, they did not discover the gun as part of the attempted frisk. When one of the officers began the frisk, Coleman immediately flailed his arms, tried to break away and ran a few feet. Two of the officers brought him to the ground, managed to get him under control and then handcuffed him. Only then did Coleman admit that he had a gun in his pocket, which the officers then recovered.

To assess whether the gun and Coleman’s statements are tainted by the alleged illegality of the attempted frisk, see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9…