Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-CF-1132 LANDON R. MAYO, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CF2-17614-16) (Hon. José M. López, Trial Judge) (Argued October 20, 2021 Decided January 6, 2022) Vincent A. Jankoski and Sean R. Day were on the briefs for appellant. Jessie K. Liu, United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed, Channing D. Phillips, then Acting United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Elizabeth H. Danello, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Monica Dolin, Jennifer Loeb, and Meredith E. Mayer-Dempsey, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the briefs for appellee. Before EASTERLY, MCLEESE, and DEAHL, Associate Judges. Opinion of the court by Associate Judge EASTERLY. Dissenting opinion by Associate Judge MCLEESE at page 56. 2 EASTERLY, Associate Judge: Nineteen-year-old Landon Mayo was “just hanging out” with some other people in an alley in the Kenilworth neighborhood when a group of officers from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit, part of a two-car convoy, pulled up. Three GRU officers exited the vehicle and focused their attention on Mr. Mayo, who had walked away from them to talk to other people in the alley. Following and flanking him, the GRU officers told Mr. Mayo they just wanted to talk—but then asked if he had a gun. When Mr. Mayo started to run, one officer dove to tackle him. The officer got a hand on Mr. Mayo’s foot and tripped him up, but Mr. Mayo managed to continue running. He was apprehended by the second car of GRU officers a short distance away and the officers subsequently recovered a gun and drugs they believed him to have discarded or handed off to others in flight. In this appeal, Mr. Mayo argues that the GRU officers seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the gun and drugs should have been suppressed. We agree. First, we hold that Mr. Mayo was seized when the GRU officer dove to tackle him and tripped him, even though he got away. We rely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021), which effectively overruled this court’s decision in Henson v. United States, 55 A.3d 859 (D.C. 2012). Second, we hold that this seizure was unsupported by reasonable, articulable 3 suspicion and therefore unlawful. Third, we hold that the items of physical evidence subsequently recovered by the police from Mr. Mayo’s person and in the area of the chase were fruits of this unlawful seizure that must be suppressed. Accordingly, we vacate Mr. Mayo’s convictions. 1 I. Facts and Procedural History A. Suppression Hearing The government presented one witness at the hearing on Mr. Mayo’s motion to suppress, Sergeant Jose Jaquez of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals