USCA4 Appeal: 19-4904 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 43 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY EUGENE PETERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00082-HEH-1) Argued: December 8, 2021 Decided: February 24, 2023 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges. Reversed, vacated, and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Senior Judge Floyd joined. Senior Judge Traxler wrote a dissenting opinion. ARGUED: Paul Geoffrey Gill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Eugene Anthony, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 19-4904 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 43 GREGORY, Chief Judge: Anthony Eugene Peters was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Peters and another individual, Gary Garrison, were walking down a sidewalk when the officers approached them, accused them of trespass, and requested that they lift their shirts to show they were unarmed. The Government argues that the officers suspected Peters of trespass for eight reasons—one of which includes Peters’s association with Garrison, another suspected trespasser. Garrison, however, was permitted to walk away after lifting his shirt while Peters was seized until he did so. The officers found a firearm and ammunition on Peters’s person pursuant to the seizure. Peters filed a motion to suppress this evidence, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion when they seized him. Following an evidentiary hearing, during which the two officers testified, the district court found the stop was valid and denied the suppression motion. Peters then entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. On appeal, we find that the officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify seizing Peters. Thus, we reverse the district court’s order, vacate Peters’s conviction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (“RRHA”) owns numerous properties in Richmond, Virginia, including the Creighton Court apartment complex 2 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4904 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 43 (“Creighton Court”). A Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the RRHA and the Richmond Police Department (“RPD”), authorizes police officers to enforce state trespass laws on RRHA’s properties and issue notice to any non-resident who is not: (1) a resident’s guest; (2) a RRHA employee; or (3) on the property for “a legitimate business or social purpose.” J.A. 247. On February 3, 2019, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Officer Stephen Butler—an eight- year veteran of the RPD—was patrolling the area …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals