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. 19-CF-0849 T.W., ∗ APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2018-CF2-003695) (Hon. Todd E. Edelman, Trial Judge) (Argued April 6, 2022 Decided April 20, 2023) KC Bridges, Public Defender Service, with whom Samia Fam and Alice Wang, Public Defender Service, were on the brief, for appellant. David P. Saybolt, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Channing D. Phillips, Acting United States Attorney at the time, Chrisellen R. Kolb, John P. Mannarino, and Jamie Carter, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee. Before EASTERLY and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. ∗ Appellant has moved that we refer to him by his initials only given that he was sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act and is eligible to have his arrest records expunged. The United States indicated that it opposes the motion, but did not file a written opposition or otherwise offer any reasons for its position. The division has granted appellant’s motion. 2 Opinion of the court by Associate Judge DEAHL. Dissenting opinion by Senior Judge THOMPSON at page 34. DEAHL, Associate Judge: T.W. appeals his convictions for carrying a pistol without a license and other gun-related charges, stemming from police officers finding a loaded firearm on him after T.W. consented to a pat-down search. T.W. argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress that firearm because it was the fruit of an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The government concedes that, if officers did in fact seize T.W. before he consented to a pat-down search, the seizure was unlawful, the motion to suppress should have been granted, and we must reverse T.W.’s convictions. It contends only that T.W. was not in fact seized when he consented to a search. We agree with T.W. that he was unlawfully seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment before he consented to the search, and therefore reverse his convictions. I. The relevant facts are largely undisputed and were captured by body-worn camera footage submitted at the suppression hearing. Officers Dmitry Gendelman and Krishaon Ewing of the Metropolitan Police Department were patrolling in the 3 Woodland neighborhood of Southeast, D.C., at around 5:30 p.m. one March evening. Both officers were part of an MPD “crime suppression team,” which proactively patrols high-crime areas for guns, drugs, and other illegal activity. The officers were armed and in full police uniform, with Gendelman wearing a bulletproof vest “with big white letters that say ‘Police’ . . . on the front.” They rode as passengers in a marked police vehicle, and another marked police vehicle followed closely behind. As they approached an apartment building at 2348 Ainger Place SE, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals