US v. Charles Washington, No. 11-4427 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4427 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES DENARD WASHINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00294-NCT-1) Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Denard Washington appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) (2006). the district court On appeal, Washington contends that erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence produced during what he claims was an illegal seizure of his person by police officers. He argues that his detention violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. We affirm. This court reviews for clear error the factual findings underlying a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress and the court s legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). evaluating construes the the denial of a suppression evidence in the light government, the prevailing party below. most motion, When the favorable Court to the Id. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may stop a person for investigative purposes when the officer has reasonable suspicion criminal activity is afoot. based on articulable facts that United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968). Whether there is reasonable suspicion to justify the stop depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known 2 to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989); F.3d Foster, 634 at 246. The reasonable suspicion determination is a commonsensical proposition, and deference should be accorded to police officers determinations based on their practical experience and training. United States v. Foreman, 369 F.3d 776, 782 (4th Cir. 2004). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district was court supported correctly by the determined requisite that Washington s reasonable seizure suspicion. When officers encountered Washington, he was in a known high-crime area and appeared to be attempting to conceal himself behind a dumpster. When an officer tried to confront him, he fled and failed to heed commands to stop. As we have previously stated, such circumstances, considered in their totality, are sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged in See United States v. Johnson, 599 F.3d 339, criminal activity. 345 (4th Cir. 2010). on the presence fact in that, a We find no merit in Washington s reliance when high-crime taken area suspicion of criminal activity. alone, will not unprovoked support a flight or reasonable Foreman, 369 F.3d at 782. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
