United States v. Hawkins, 2025 WL 3546225 (4th Cir. 2025)
While conducting surveillance in an area known for high-volume drug activity, drug task force officers in West Virginia saw a car with expired registration, dark window tint, and a malfunctioning taillight. They saw Cornelious Johnson in the driver’s seat. Johnson was known to them because he was on parole from a 2015 drug conviction. Deandre Williams was in the passenger seat.
As they kept eyes on Johnson, they saw a man in a red jacket, Jackie Byrd, approach his car. The officers watched as Johnson and Williams interacted with Byrd. Although the officers suspected a drug deal, they did not see a handoff. Another man, Tremayne Hawkins, got into the back seat and the men drove off. The task force officers asked a patrol officer to stop the car. The patrol officer stopped Johnson after he made an illegal left turn and because he saw a faulty taillight and expired registration.
The officer separated Williams and Johnson and questioned them about the interaction with Byrd at the apartment complex. He asked Williams where he was coming from, and Williams answered that they were coming from the apartment complex. When the officer asked Williams if he met anyone at the apartments, Williams denied he had. The officer then asked Williams about Byrd, the man in the red jacket who had approached the car. Williams said Byrd was just asking for a cigarette. The officer next spoke to Johnson, who also said the men were coming from the apartments. When the officer asked Johnson about Byrd, Johnson said Byrd was Hawkins’ uncle and that Byrd was asking Johnson about a job.
Noting the men’s inconsistent stories, the officer asked them to wait in the car while he called for a police service dog. When the detector dog arrived and sniffed the exterior of the car, the dog indicated the presence of drugs. Officers directed the occupants to get out of the car and submit to frisks. The officers also searched the car. The officers did not find any drugs, but did find a firearm in Hawkins’ waistband. Hawkins admitted to being a restricted person because of a domestic violence conviction.
“The court said the prosecution ‘failed to identify any specific identifiers that suggest Byrd’s interaction… was a drug transaction.’”
Hawkins was charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted person. At trial, he asked the court to suppress the gun found in his waistband. This motion was denied on the grounds that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on the area’s reputation for high crime and drug deals, Johnson’s prior conviction, the observed interaction with Byrd, and the inconsistent statements from the occupants. Hawkins pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the gun evidence.
The appellate court reversed, holding that none of the cited factors — even considered in totality — provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The court first stated that Hawkins’ presence in a “high crime area” may be relevant in context but cannot alone create reasonable suspicion. Nor can a prior criminal record, standing alone, create reasonable suspicion. The court said the prosecution “failed to identify any specific identifiers that suggest Byrd’s interaction with Johnson and Williams was a drug transaction.” Finally, the court discounted the discrepancies in the men’s stories as “minor and reconcilable inconsistencies.” Ultimately, the court said it could “find no basis for reasonable suspicion that the individuals here were engaged in criminal activity” when considering the factors in their totality.
What would have made the difference between suppression and admission of the gun evidence? The court gave a few clues. The officers testified they knew the apartment complex from prior drug investigations. However, the court noted the complex itself was not identified as a high-crime area. “The fact that these events occurred in a place merely associated with prior investigations deserves even less weight within the totality of circumstances,” the panel stated. The court was also critical of citing Johnson’s prior criminal record without some evidence that he had not complied with parole terms or had been involved in some recent criminal activity. Finally, the court emphasized the lack of evidence of a hand-to-hand transfer that would have been strongly indicative of a drug deal.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
This may just be a case of a trial judge adding one plus one plus one plus one plus one to equal five, while three other judges calculated differently. Whatever the reason, the appellate court’s rejection of the calculation of the totality of the circumstances should remind officers to include every detail supporting probable cause in arrest reports. It’s also good to remember that sometimes what seems to be obviously suspicious to cops can still leave judges disagreeing about what is and what isn’t reasonably suspicious.
- Blog Articles
