US v. David Wallace, No. 12-4024 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4024 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID LEE WALLACE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:11-cr-00109-1) Submitted: August 27, 2012 Decided: October 17, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Assistant Counsel, Goodwin, Assistant Appellee. Newberger, Federal Public Defender, David R. Bungard, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth II, United States Attorney, William Bryan King, II, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Lee Wallace appeals from the district court s judgment after his conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute hydrocodone. Wallace reserved the right to challenge the district court s suppression ruling. On appeal, he raises the issue of whether officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was engaged in criminal conduct when they tackled him following his flight from another officer who was in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle. We affirm. We review the district court s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480, 485 (4th Cir. 2011). We review the district court s reasonable suspicion determination de novo, and we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the prevailing party below. United States v. Powell, 666 F.3d 180, 183, 186-87 (4th Cir. 2011). Under detention articulable or the stop Fourth must suspicion criminal activity. Amendment, be that supported the person a brief by a seized investigatory reasonable is engaged and in Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440 (1980). Reviewing courts must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether objective basis States v. Arvizu, for 534 an officer suspecting U.S. 266, 2 had a criminal 273 particularized activity. (2002). and United Because the reasonable suspicion standard is an objective one, we examine the facts within the knowledge of the officer to determine the presence or nonexistence of reasonable suspicion. United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498, 511 (4th Cir. 2011). Although insufficient to an officer s justify a reliance stop, the on a mere likelihood hunch of is criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard. quotation factors marks omitted). susceptible particularized Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274 (citations and and of Moreover, innocent objective while a explanation basis for collection may form suspecting of the criminal activity, id. at 277-78, we have expressed our concern about the inclination of the Government toward using whatever facts are present, no activity. 2011). matter how innocent, as indicia of suspicious United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. Thus, the Government must do more than simply label a behavior as suspicious to make it so, but must either articulate why a particular demonstrate, given behavior the is surrounding suspicious or circumstances, logically that likely to be indicative of some more sinister activity. it is Id. We have reviewed the record and the parties briefs and conclude that officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion that Wallace was engaged in criminal activity when 3 they stopped him. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000); United States v. Haye, 825 F.2d 32, 34 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 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.
