United States v. Holly, No. 19-1216 (7th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseChicago Officers, in uniform, were patrolling a public housing complex in an effort to increase police visibility in anticipation of celebratory gunfire to usher in the new year. They saw Holly walking on a sidewalk inside a courtyard, approached, and asked Holly if he had a gun. The officers testified that they did not draw their guns nor did they touch Holly. Holly claimed that they approached with guns drawn. Holly said yes. The police confiscated the gun and arrested him. Holly was charged with possessing a firearm following a prior felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the gun, arguing that his police encounter was an impermissible seizure. He also moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the police’s failure to preserve video footage of his arrest violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland. The court denied Holly’s motions, reasoning that the officers’ testimony made more sense than Holly’s and that Holly was less credible given his criminal history and his three shifting explanations for why he had a gun. The court noted that no one who watched the video (before it was overwritten) testified that it depicted Holly’s arrest. Holly had not established that the video was potentially exculpatory or that the police acted in bad faith by failing to preserve it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In the totality of circumstances, Holly’s interaction with police was voluntary and did not constitute a seizure.
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.