US v. Reginald Lloyd, No. 13-4643 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4643 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. REGINALD A. LLOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cr-00033-JFM-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: August 6, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sujit Raman, Chief of Appeals, David A. O Neil, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David M. Bitkower, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ross B. Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Lloyd was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) during and in § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012), relation carrying (2012), to and a being and crime a of of 192 months. Lloyd a in firearm 18 violence, felon firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). sentence brandishing U.S.C. possession of a He received an aggregate now appeals his conviction, arguing that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress certain statements made to police following his arrest but prior Miranda v. to the Arizona, administration 384 U.S. 436 of Miranda (1966). warnings, hold We see the that statements were admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda, and we therefore affirm. On suppression findings for appeal from the motion, we review clear error and district the its court s district legal denial court s conclusions of a factual de novo. United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1572 (2014). When a defendant s suppression motion is denied, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013), and defer to the district court s credibility determinations. United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009). 2 An incriminating statement made while a suspect is in police custody will generally be admissible at trial only if the suspect is first warned of his right against self-incrimination. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 478-79. statement is made in response to police If the custodial inquiries made to preserve their own safety or that of the public, however, the statement is admissible. (1984). New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659 An officer s pre-Miranda questioning is acceptable if it relates to an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger associated with [a] weapon. Id. at 659 n.8. The exception . . . will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it. Here, the exception clearly applied. Id. at 658. Following the armed robbery of a store, Officers Ward and Guerra heard a radio broadcast describing the two suspects and the vehicle in which they were officers traveling. observed a Within vehicle minutes of the broadcast, matching the description. the They initiated a traffic stop, and the suspect vehicle pulled over. However, when Officer Guerra exited the patrol car, the vehicle fled from the scene, leading the officers on a high-speed chase during which the suspect vehicle drove erratically through heavy traffic. The vehicle came to a stop only when the driver lost control and crashed into a vehicle at another gas station. 3 The officers could not see into the car because its windows were fogged up. repeated commands When no one in the car responded to that the occupants exit and identify themselves, Officer Ward opened the passenger-side door, finding Lloyd in the driver s seat. When Lloyd did not exit the vehicle as instructed, Officer Ward physically removed him, placed him on the ground, and arrested him. was. Ward asked Lloyd where the gun Lloyd responded, It s in the back. Ward and Guerra could not see into the car from their position. the vehicle, looked in, and saw no one. second suspect was. Ward because the responded stated He asked where the Lloyd replied, He got out. testified radio Ward walked to that broadcast that there he to asked which were two these he and armed two questions Officer suspects. Guerra The officers had reason to believe that there were weapons in the vehicle and that there might be another suspect in or near the vehicle. Because the officers reasonably were concerned about their safety and that of citizens in the immediate area, the questions were permissible, and the incriminating responses admissible, under the public safety exception. We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 4 in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
