Page 53 - March April 2020 TPA

but took them out” upon request. After Hill and Monsivaisdo not offer Darrell the support
approximately four minutes of this walking-and- he claims they do. In fact, under the terms of
talking exchange, one of the officers, Deputy Monsivais, Darrell’s behavior is a prototypical case
Baker, stopped Monsivais and said he was going to of suspicious activity: flight from police in a high-
pat him down.71 Monsivais, a Mexican citizen crime area. The Monsivais language, together with
without legal status in the United States, admitted Wardlow’s reliance on these same two factors,
to having a gun in his waistband and was ultimately plainly contradicts Darrell’s claim that his presence
charged with possessing a firearm while being in a “high crime area and evasive behavior” are
72
unlawfully present in the country. insufficient “to support a finding of reasonable
On appeal from the district court’s denial of his suspicion.” Moreover, as Deputy Latch testified,
motion to suppress, we held that the officers lacked the officers reasonably feared that Darrell might
draw a weapon or warn the target of their arrest
reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Monsivais.
warrant if he were permitted to withdraw from
We noted that Deputy Baker had testified that at no
view. Finally, the fact that Darrell “was not seen
point in the encounter did he suspect Monsivais of
committing any criminal activity” does not detract
any criminal act. Rather, Baker decided to pat
from the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion.
Monsivais down because he was “just acting
74 Terry requires “reasonable suspicion supported by
suspicious.” Baker even admitted that he articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be
generally would not pursue “a stranded motorist afoot’”; it does not require certainty that a crime is
who ran away from him and his car’s flashing 81
in fact being committed. Viewing this case under
lights,” and he offered no explanation for his
the totality of the circumstances, we hold that
decision to follow Monsivais on this
75 reasonable suspicion supported the brief
occasion. The Court rejected the Government’s investigatory stop of Darrell.
argument that “Monsivais’s jittery demeanor and For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s conviction
habit during questioning of putting his hands in his and sentence are affirmed.
pockets” contributed to Deputy Baker’s reasonable th rd
76 U.S. v. Darrell, 5 Cir., No. 19-60087, Dec. 23 ,
suspicion. It is true, we acknowledged, that 2019.
“nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in ****************************************
determining reasonable suspicion.” However, there *******************
was nothing evasive about Monsivais’s behavior,
and his nervousness was an “entirely natural ROBBERY – ELEMENTS AND EVIDENCE
78
reaction to police presence.”
Walter Freeman Jordan, III and Johnathon Nico
As for Monsivais’s choice to continue walking past
Wise were found guilty, along with several co-
the officers’ car, we emphasized that “[t]he context
defendants, of aiding and abetting aggravated
in which a person seeks to avoid contact with a
79 credit union robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
peace officer is important.” Although
2113(a), (d)(2). Jordan was additionally found
“[r]easonable suspicion may arise when an
guilty of aiding and abetting the brandishing of a
individual flees from police,” such cases “involve
firearm during and in relation to a crime of
discernable facts or combination of facts
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
specifically linking the fleeing individual to
924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(2). They both appeal their
reasonably suspected criminality—e.g. flight in a
convictions and sentences.
high-crime area or flight after receipt of a tip
80 Jordan argues that (1) there was insufficient
indicating criminality.” evidence to sustain his conviction; (2) the district

46 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal