PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 10-4462
PAUL RAMON GLOVER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(3:09-cr-00083-RJC-1)
Argued: October 28, 2011
Decided: December 9, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Diaz joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Matthew Segal, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Richard Lee Edwards, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Car-
olina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Claire J. Rauscher, Execu-
2 UNITED STATES v. GLOVER
tive Director, Peter S. Adolf, Assistant Federal Defender,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CARO-
LINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Paul Glover entered a conditional plea of guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He now appeals the denial of his motion to sup-
press evidence obtained during a stop-and-frisk in a deserted
gas station parking lot in the wee hours of the morning. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s denial of
Glover’s suppression motion.
I.
In the early morning hours of March 24, 2009, Officers
Aaron Skipper and Travis Archer of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Police Department were patrolling the Eastway
Division of Charlotte, North Carolina in a marked police car.
Each officer had been with the police department for six years
and was familiar with the area. Officer Skipper had patrolled
the Eastway Division since early 2004 and Officer Archer had
been assigned to the area for his entire six years on the force.
Based on their past experience as well as their nightly brief-
ings on criminal activity, both officers knew that the Eastway
Division was plagued by armed robberies and assaults.
Around 4:40 a.m., the officers pulled into a twenty-four
hour gas station located at the intersection of Westover Street
and Central Avenue. Both officers were familiar with this
facility. Approximately one year earlier, Officer Skipper had
UNITED STATES v. GLOVER 3
investigated a robbery of this particular gas station and Offi-
cer Archer knew that it had been previously robbed as well.
Officer Skipper was also aware that in the early hours of the
morning, this gas station remained open for business even
though its doors were locked. Usually a single attendant
would be on duty during these hours and he would either let
one customer into the building at a time or deal with custom-
ers through a slot in the glass similar to a bank teller’s win-
dow.
On this occasion, however, the officers noticed that the
attendant was outside the protection of the locked building.
As Officer Skipper observed, he was instead bent down in the
parking lot and "preoccupied" with using a large dipstick to
check the levels of the fuel tanks. There were no vehicles in
the parking lot at this time.
Aside from the attendant, the only person in the area was
Glover, who was standing at the back corner of the station and
appeared to be talking on a cell phone while watching the
attendant. Glover’s location caught the attention of Officer
Skipper, who knew from investigating a previous robbery that
this area was not covered by the gas station’s surveillance
cameras. Officer Archer also noticed Glover "glancing around
the corner" and then pulling "his head back as if he were try-
ing to hide." According to the officers, Glover and the atten-
dant were about forty-five to sixty feet apart at the time.
The officers pulled into the back parking lot from a side
entrance and then drove around to the front as if they were
exiting onto Central Avenue. As they drove through the lot,
Glover "followed [their] movements with his eyes and head."
The officers agreed that Glover’s observation of the attendant
was suspicious and they were concerned about the possibility
of "[t]he store being robbed." Officer Skipper suggested that
they "should get out and speak with" Glover to "find out what
he was doing."
4 UNITED STATES v. GLOVER
So instead of leaving, the officers circled back around and
drove again into the station’s back parking lot. In the approxi-
mately five to six seconds they were out of Glover’s sight, he
had traversed the forty-five to sixty feet that had previously
separated him from the attendant and was, as Officer Archer
observed, "standing, basically, over top of him." The atten-
dant was "still bent down checking the fuel levels" and
appeared to be unaware that Glover was standing only a foot
or two away from him.
The officers parked the patrol car and walked over to
Glover and the attendant, who were neither engaged in a con-
versation nor making eye contact with one another. Con-
cerned that Glover was "stalking the clerk" and "believ[ing]
him to have a weapon," Officer Skipper informed Glover that
he was going to pat him down and then proceeded to do so.
When he patted Glover’s right pants pocket, he felt an object
he believed was a gun barrel. Officer Skipper then retrieved
a handgun from Glover’s pocket and placed him under arrest.
In April 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Glover for
being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Glover filed a pre-trial motion to suppress
the evidence seized at the gas station. The district court then
held a hearing on the issue during which it both heard testi-
mony from Officers Skipper and Archer as well as viewed the
patrol car’s video recording of the incident. At the end of the
hearing, the district court denied Glover’s suppression
motion. Glover subsequently entered a conditional plea of
guilty and the district court sentenced him to sixty months in
prison. Glover now appeals the denial of his motion to sup-
press.
II.
A.
Glover contends that the stop-and-frisk in the gas station
parking lot violated the Fourth Amendment because Officers
UNITED STATES v. GLOVER 5
Skipper and Archer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity. According to Glover, the fact that he was merely
standing near a gas station attendant in a high crime area is
not enough to create a reasonable suspicion that he was plan-
ning to commit a crime. This argument neglects the import of
the leading case in this area of law. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1, 24 (1968), the Supreme Court per Chief Justice Warren
held that the Fourth Amendment’s bar against unreasonable
searches and seizures does not prohibit police officers from
engaging in a brief stop-and-frisk necessary "to protect them-
selves and other prospective victims of violence in situations
where they may lack probable cause for an arrest." That is
exactly the situation we have here.
Terry provides a good illustration of the type of preventive
police action that complies with Fourth Amendment safe-
guards. While patrolling downtown Cleveland around 2:30
p.m., Officer McFadden noticed two men pacing back and
forth in front of a store and conferring with one another as
well as with a third man who soon left the area. Based in part
on his years of experience with the neighborhood, Officer
McFadden became suspicious that the men were casing the
store in preparation for a robbery. Concerned that they might
be carrying a gun, he followed the men, asked them what their
names were, and then briefly patted one of them down,
whereupon he discovered a revolver in the suspect’s coat
pocket. Id. at 5-7.
The Supreme Court upheld this conduct as constitutional.
Refusing to apply the Fourth Amendment in a manner that
might "exact a high toll in human injury," id. at 15, or "re-
quire that police officers take unnecessary risks," id. at 23, it
held that a protective stop-and-frisk is legitimate if a police
officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect "is armed and
presently dangerous to the officer or to others." Id. at 24. It
also held that Officer McFadden’s conduct met this standard.
Noting that while each of the suspects’ acts was "perhaps
innocent in itself," the Court concluded that "[i]t would have
6 UNITED STATES v. GLOVER
been poor police work indeed" for Officer McFadden to have
simply gone on his way and not to have investigated this
"possibly criminal behavior" further. Id. at 22-23.
Since Terry, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that engag-
ing in a stop-and-frisk to prevent a crime from occurring is a
valid use of police authority. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463
U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983) ("Our past cases indicate then that
protection of police and others can justify protective searches
when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a
danger . . . ."); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145 (1972)
("The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who
lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable
cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a
crime to occur . . . ."); see also United States v. Perkins, 363
F.3d 317, 326 (4th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he very point of Terry was
to permit officers to take preventive action and conduct inves-
tigative stops before crimes are committed, based on what
they view as suspicious—albeit even legal—activity.")
(emphasis in original). While this in practice means that offi-
cers can detain suspects for conduct that is "ambiguous and
susceptible of an innocent explanation," Terry and its progeny
permit reasonable stops in order "to resolve the ambiguity."
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000).
This makes sense. Terry balanced the government’s interest
in protecting the public and the police from unnecessary risks
and a suspect’s interest in avoiding a brief frisk of his person.
See 392 U.S. at 20-25. When an officer has a reasonable sus-
picion that an armed robbery is about to occur, this balance
favors the government. Sparing a victim the trauma of being
held up with a gun—not to mention the possibility of being
injured or killed—as well as sparing an officer and suspect the
risk of an armed confrontation justifies the utilization of a
brief protective measure. The Constitution does not command
an officer to stand idly by and run the risk that a suspect will
commit a violent crime on his watch. See id. at 24 (holding
that it would be "clearly unreasonable to deny" a police offi-
UNITED STATES v. GLOVER 7
cer the ability to "neutralize the threat of physical harm" if he
has reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and danger-
ous).
Because of its focus on police action designed to prevent an
armed robbery, we believe Terry to be relevant here. It is
more relevant than decisions upon which Glover relies,
because those decisions do not concern the imminent outbreak
of armed violence. Given that a reasonable suspicion inquiry
is "multi-faceted, ‘one determination will seldom be a useful
‘precedent’ for another,’" Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.
690, 698 (1996) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238
n.11 (1983)), and this is particularly true when the decisional
contexts differ so markedly. United States v. Sprinkle, 106
F.3d 613, 615-18 (4th Cir. 1997), for instance, involved the
stop of a suspect believed to be in the middle of a drug deal
on a sunny afternoon in a crowded residential neighborhood.
United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246-48 (4th Cir. 2011),
similarly concerned the stop of a driver believed to be
involved in drug activity in the middle of the day in a low-
crime area. These cases do not address how police should
respond to the threat of armed robbery in a deserted gas sta-
tion parking lot in the middle of the night. We must therefore
look to Terry to guide our analysis.
B.
With Terry in mind, we now ask whether the facts of this
case created a reasonable suspicion that Glover was planning
to commit an armed robbery. As the Supreme Court has made
clear, "An investigatory stop must be justified by some objec-
tive manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be,
engaged in criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417 (1981). In making this inquiry, we consider the
totality of the circumstances. United States v. Sokolow, 490
U.S. 1, 8 (1989). Factors which alone may be "susceptible of
innocent explanation" can "form a particularized and objec-
8 UNITED STATES v. GLOVER
tive basis" for a stop when taken together. United States v.
Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277-78 (2002).
After considering the totality of the circumstances, we
believe that Officers Skipper and Archer had reasonable sus-
picion to justify the stop-and-frisk of Glover. To start, the set-
ting of the stop supports their suspicion that Glover was
planning to engage in an armed robbery. The high degree of
crime in an area and the lateness of the hour are each relevant
factors in a reasonable suspicion inquiry, Wardlow, 528 U.S.
at 124; United States v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151, 154 (4th Cir.
1993), and here we have both. The officers were patrolling the
Eastway Division of Charlotte, an area they both knew was
plagued by violent crime. As Officer Skipper later testified,
"[W]ithin the three months prior to the incident, we had over
300 larceny reports, over 100 vehicles stolen, over . . . 54 rob-
beries, 17 kidnappings, 5 rapes and 4 homicides within 10
square miles."
But the knowledge of the officers was even more precise
than this. The officers knew that the gas station itself was the
particular target of criminal activity. Officer Archer knew that
it had been robbed before and Officer Skipper himself had
investigated a previous robbery of this facility. Both officers
were therefore aware that this gas station was a tempting tar-
get before they set eyes on Glover. This is an important con-
sideration. It cannot be conclusive, however, because the
nature of an area or facility does not furnish particularized
suspicion as to any individual suspect. The district court put
it best: while "the high crime nature of the area" does not
transform it into "a search zone," it is nevertheless a relevant
factor in a Terry analysis.
It is further relevant that Glover was watching the attendant
at a time when few people would be around. Whereas in Terry
Officer McFadden observed the suspects walking in front of
a store around 2:30 in the afternoon in downtown Cleveland,
the police here saw Glover watching a gas station attendant at
UNITED STATES v. GLOVER 9
4:40 in the morning in a deserted parking lot. The lateness of
the hour significantly lowered the risk that a robber would be
observed or reported. The fact these events took place at this
late hour only "compound[s] the suspiciousness" of Glover’s
behavior. See United States v. Smith, 396 F.3d 579, 586-87
(4th Cir. 2005).
We also note the vulnerability of the gas station attendant
himself. As the district court observed, "24 hour gas stations
like this are frequently targets of robbery," and it is not hard
to see why. The attendant was alone at the station and there
were only a few residences and a National Guard Armory
nearby. He was also unprotected. He had left the protective
confines of the locked building and, as Officer Skipper
observed, was "bent down checking the fuel levels." The
parking lot was completely deserted save for Glover and him-
self. And given that Glover was standing outside the range of
the surveillance cameras, the attendant would have been
unaware of his presence until after he had left the building.
Common sense would suggest that this lone attendant was a
candidate for a holdup.
With this setting in mind, we now turn to Glover’s conduct.
The officers observed him standing in the back corner of the
station—a location that Officer Skipper knew fell outside the
range of the station’s surveillance cameras — and appearing
to be talking on his cell phone. Glover was obviously not
there to buy gas, as there were no cars in the parking lot. And
he did not appear to be interested in purchasing anything else
from the station, as he was not speaking with the attendant.
In fact, the attendant told Officer Archer following the stop
that "he did not know who this person was or why he was
there." Instead, Glover was watching the attendant, who was
busy checking the fuel tank levels.
What is more, Officer Archer noticed that Glover was
"glancing around the corner" and then "would pull his head
back as if he were trying to hide." Such "nervous, evasive
10 UNITED STATES v. GLOVER
behavior" supports the reasonableness of the officers’ belief
that Glover was preparing to commit a crime. See Wardlow,
528 U.S. at 124. While it is important not to overplay a sus-
pect’s nervous behavior in situations where citizens would
normally be expected to be upset, see United States v.
Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480, 490 (4th Cir. 2011), Glover was
furtively watching the attendant from a location outside the
range of surveillance cameras, glancing around the corner,
and pulling his head back well before Officers Skipper and
Archer stopped the patrol car. Such conduct is far more like
the casing of the store in Terry than the case of nerves a citi-
zen might ordinarily exhibit in interactions with police.
Finally, we cannot ignore Glover’s actions as soon as the
police left his sight. As the patrol car drove through the park-
ing lot, Glover remained in the back corner of the station and
followed the officers’ movements until they left. But as soon
as the police were gone, he suddenly left his location and
planted himself next to the attendant. Although the officers
were out of sight for only about five to six seconds, Glover
had covered a distance of forty-five to sixty feet.
At this point, the attendant was in the most vulnerable posi-
tion possible. He was outside of the protection of the locked
building and bent over checking the fuel tank levels in a
deserted parking lot. For all he and Glover knew, the police
had completed their patrol of the station and would not be
back for some time. Despite the fact that Glover was "stand-
ing, basically, over top of him," the two men were neither
making eye contact nor speaking to one another. As the dis-
trict court concluded, Glover’s conduct suggests that he may
have been taking advantage of the most auspicious circum-
stances to commit a robbery.
Given the setting and the conduct, we believe Glover’s
actions were sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that
"criminal activity [was] afoot." Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123. In
Terry, the Supreme Court upheld a stop based on less threat-
UNITED STATES v. GLOVER 11
ening behavior. While the suspects in Terry were merely
walking back and forth in front of a store during the middle
of the afternoon, Glover moved suddenly toward a solitary
gas attendant in the wee hours of the morning once it
appeared that the police had left the scene. And whereas Offi-
cer McFadden stopped the suspects in Terry after they had
walked away from their potential target, 392 U.S. at 6-7, the
officers here intervened following Glover’s move toward the
attendant. On the basis of the record before us, we cannot see
how the stop-and-frisk here was anything other than good
police work that may well have prevented a man from being
robbed at gunpoint with all the unpredictable consequences
that such a volatile confrontation poses. As the Terry Court
noted: "It would have been poor police work indeed for an
officer of 30 years’ experience in the detection of thievery
from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to inves-
tigate this behavior further." Id. at 23. Glover’s argument
ignores the import of the Supreme Court’s statement.
III.
The stop-and-frisk of Glover was neither "the product of a
volatile or inventive imagination" nor "undertaken simply as
an act of harassment," but was instead "the tempered act of a
policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make
a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from
possible danger, and took limited steps to do so." Id. at 28.
The Fourth Amendment does not preclude officers from tak-
ing modest steps to protect twenty-four hour gas stations, con-
venience stores, or fast-food outlets from armed robberies.
The clerks and attendants who keep these facilities open to the
public late at night often do so at considerable risk to their
own safety. They often work solitary shifts in isolated circum-
stances where their presumed proximity to cash makes them
uniquely vulnerable. Whether they moonlight as a matter of
personal preference or because times are tough and other jobs
are not available, we do not know. But whatever the case may
12 UNITED STATES v. GLOVER
be, we decline to rule in a manner that would leave them
without the reasonable rudiments of police protection.
The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.
AFFIRMED