United States v. Lefebvre, 2024 WL 4293922 (2nd Cir. 2024)
A hotel clerk called 911 to report a man “wearing a gray sweatshirt and jeans with tattoos on his face had threatened two female guests with a gun” in a stairwell at a Holiday Inn in Rutland, Vermont. The first officer to arrive, Vermont State Police Trooper Jeremy Sullivan, spoke with the two victims. The description the y gave largely matched the details provided in the 911 dispatch. When other officers arrived at the location, they asked the two victims to leave the hotel and wait at the nearby state police barracks for their safety. The officers then searched the hotel. Another witness told them she had overheard the encounter and affirmed she had previously seen a man with facial tattoos in the stairwell.
Trooper Sullivan spotted Varian Lefebvre leaving the stairwell where the assault had allegedly taken place. Lefebvre was “wearing a grey hoodie sweatshirt, a blue-colored medical face covering, had several face tattoos visible, and was carrying a backpack over his shoulders.” When Lefebvre looked toward him, Sullivan said, he “appeared to jump or startle” and “quickly turned his back towards me and began looking at his phone.” Trooper Sullivan got out of his patrol car, drew his weapon and ordered Lefebvre to stop and show his hands. He frisked Lefebvre and handcuffed him. Lefebvre denied consent to search his backpack. Sullivan placed Lefebvre in the back of his patrol car and drove him to the police barracks so the two witnesses could identify him. The drive took approximately nine minutes.
At the barracks, the witnesses confirmed Lefebvre was the man who had pointed the gun at them, and Lefebvre was arrested for aggravated assault. Trooper Sullivan obtained a warrant to search the backpack, in which he found a handgun, .40-caliber cartridges, 220 bags of fentanyl and a bag of marijuana. Lefebvre was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Lefebvre asked the court to suppress all physical evidence seized from his backpack after his arrest, claiming his detention became a de facto arrest unsupported by probable cause when he was transported to the police barracks. The trial court denied Lefebvre’s motion to suppress the physical evidence. He appealed.
An arrest may occur even when the officer does not subjectively intend to arrest. Several factors are considered in weighing whether a de facto arrest has occurred. One court noted that “no scientific formula exists” to distinguish between investigative stops and arrests. The factors a court considers to decide whether the level of force and degree of intrusion used in a detention was reasonable include: “(1) the length of time involved in the stop; (2) its public or private setting; (3) the number of participating law enforcement officers; (4) the risk of danger presented by the person stopped; and (5) the display or use of physical force against the person stopped, including firearms, handcuffs, and leg irons” (United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, (2nd Cir. 2004); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)). As several courts have pointed out, no single factor is determinative.
Officers conducting a Terry stop or investigative detention must employ the least intrusive means reasonably available to accomplish the legitimate investigative purposes for the stop.
In this case, the appellate court held Lefebvre’s 20-minute seizure did not become a de facto arrest when he was transported to the police barracks. because the transportation was a “reasonable and non-dilatory investigative step” given the unique circumstances. The court also concluded that even if detaining and transporting Lefebvre rose to the level of an arrest, it was supported by probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances, including the 911 call, witness descriptions and Lefebvre’s behavior.
