Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-18-2008
USA v. Holyfield
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1250
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Holyfield" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1009.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1009
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1250
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
CEDANO HOLYFIELD
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00035-1)
District Judge: The Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman
___________
ARGUED November 1, 2007
Panel Rehearing Granted May 27, 2008
SUBMITTED June 16, 2008
BEFORE: RENDELL, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : June 18, 2008)
Karen S. Gerlach, Esq.
Renee Pietropaolo, Esq.(Argued)
Office of the Federal Public Defender
1001 Liberty Avenue
1450 Liberty Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Counsel for Appellant
Robert L. Eberhardt, Esq.
Laura S. Irwin, Esq. (Argued)
Office of the United States Attorney
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Cedano Holyfield pleaded guilty to various criminal charges stemming from a drug
sale. His plea was conditional, retaining the right to appeal the following issue:
“Whether the District Court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized from the car
in which he was a passenger or from his person.” Because this opinion carries no
precedential value, we write only for the parties who know the facts. Hence, we will refer
to only such facts as are necessary and as they become germane to our conclusions. We
will affirm.
Holyfield raises three arguments on appeal: first, that what began as a Terry-stop
escalated into a de facto arrest for which probable cause was lacking; second, that there
was no probable cause for the Terry-stop in the first place; and finally, that because his
stop and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, all the evidence
thereby gained should have been suppressed by the District Court.
We hold that the District Court correctly decided that the police had sufficient
information to justify the investigatory stop. The District Court concluded that, “[i]n light
of [the detective's] personal knowledge of Harris’ drug-trafficking history, the dubious
nature of her car trouble, and Holyfield’s conduct, the reasonable observer sitting in [the
detective's] position would conclude that ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’ Accordingly,
[the detective] was justified in ordering the take-down team to enter the gas station.”
District Court opinion at A6 (citation omitted). We agree. The totality of the
circumstances here show that the detectives did possess reasonable cause to believe that
criminal activity might be happening.
The incident took place when Pittsburgh Police Detective Covington was
conducting surveillance of Lakeesha Harris in the parking lot of a Sunoco gas station.
Convington was well acquainted with Ms. Harris, having personally arrested her several
times and having knowledge that she had been engaged in drug activity. Harris was
sitting in the driver’s seat of her vehicle, which was parked with the hood up. Covington
was in an unmarked car, parked a car-length or more from Harris’ car. Four other officers
were also parked in two squad cars a short distance from the station.
Covington watched Harris for approximately 45 minutes during which time she
remained in her vehicle but made several calls on her cell phone. During this time, no
one approached the vehicle to talk to Harris. Then, Holyfield pulled into the Sunoco
parking lot. Holyfield was accompanied by one passenger. Holyfield parked his car and
walked toward Harris’ car. Covington observed large bulges in each of Holyfield’s
pockets. Holyfield then got into the passenger side of Harris’ vehicle and engaged in a
Page -3-
brief conversation with her. Holyfield next reached into his pocket with his left hand and
pulled out a large plastic bag. Believing that a drug deal was taking place, Covington
called in assistance from the other officers nearby.
Although Holyfield maintains that neither he nor Harris acted “nervous or
evasive,” their actions speak otherwise. Detective Covington saw bulges in Holyfield’s
clothing that could suggest that he was carrying drugs. Although, “bulges” themselves in
someone’s pants may not create a reasonable suspicion, that fact may be considered in
conjunction with other factors when viewing the totality of the circumstances. Holyfield
threw the bag of drugs into the back seat of the vehicle as officers approached, left the
vehicle and attempted to flee. Detective Covington was accompanied by four other
officers when he confronted Harris and Holyfield, and there is no evidence that their
visibility of these events was obstructed or inhibited, indeed it was in the middle of the
day.
Police officers may rely on their own experience and specialized training to draw
inferences from, and make deductions about the cumulative information known to them
that might well elude an untrained person. When viewed through the prism of these
officers’ experience, the totality of the circumstances raised reasonable suspicion that the
Appellant was engaging in criminal activity. We find no error in the District Court’s
conclusion.
Page -4-
Next, we turn to Holyfield’s argument that the police officers’ actions in detaining
him amounted to a de facto arrest for which they lacked probable cause. In considering
whether a stop is so minimally intrusive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion, a
court must consider the duration of the stop, the law enforcement purposes justifying the
stop, whether the police diligently sought to carry out those purposes given the
circumstances, and alternative means by which the police could have served their
purposes. The encounter at issue here took place in an open area, during daylight hours.
The record does not show that police blocked Harris’ car (in which Holyfield sat as a
passenger). The record only indicates that other officers arrived in their vehicles. No
direct physical force was used against Holyfield, nor does the fact that the police officers
had their guns drawn converts this stop into a de facto arrest.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the police delayed in acting, or
detained Holyfield long enough to raise a question whether the duration of Terry-stop was
excessive. Indeed, there is no indication that Holyfield was detained for any longer than
was necessary to allow the officers to perform a careful check to satisfy themselves that
there was no danger from accessible weapons and to confirm or dispel their suspicions.
Moreover, only an insignificant period of time elapsed between the initial stop of the car
and the discovery of contraband. We hold that the District Court correctly concluded that
a reasonable person, standing in Holyfield’s shoes, would have understood that he was
being briefly detained for inquiry and investigation, and was not under arrest.
Page -5-
As a final argument, Holyfield argues that the police lacked probable cause to
arrest him. This argument is meritless. The officers possessed a reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity sufficient to justify a Terry-stop of Holyfield. After executing this
investigatory stop, the officers had probable cause to arrest Holyfield based on Harris’
questionable behavior; the bulges in Holyfield’s pockets, Holyfield’s behavior in
approaching Harris’ car (not acting like he was there to help with her car trouble, but
proceeding directly into the passenger seat), Holyfield’s removal of the bag from his
pocket, and then – as the officers approached – throwing the bag into the back seat,
Harris’ fleeing the scene, and Officer Epler’s plain view observation of the crack cocaine
in the back seat of the car.
There is ample evidence here to support the District Court’s order denying
Holyfield’s motion to suppress. We will affirm the District Court’s order.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s reasoning that the initial stop here was
lawful because the officers had a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity
[was] afoot.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000). I suggest the facts do not
support that finding.
The time of Harris’s flight and the time of Holyfield’s throwing the bag into the
backseat are unclear, but both appear to have occurred after the police had descended on
Page -6-
the scene, exiting two cars, with at least one gun drawn, not before the police acted. This
conduct did not give the police reason to act; rather, the conduct resulted from the police
activity.
The reference to Harris’s “drug-trafficking history” misstates the paltry record on
this point. Detective Covington’s only testimony on the issue was that he knew that
Harris had a “drug history” and that he had arrested her approximately three times for
unspecified misconduct. (App. 102.) The testimony reveals nothing more.
I believe that a reasonable officer could just as easily conclude that Holyfield was
bringing Harris her lunch. (I note that I do not fault Harris for making calls rather than
looking under the hood and attempting to fix her car. I would probably have been sitting
in the car, just like her, awaiting some assistance.) The facts fall far short of providing a
reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. I would REVERSE the denial of
the suppression motion and REMAND.
______________
Page -7-