Filed: Jan. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-2665 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHEZAREE B. HALL, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2-11-cr-00473-002 District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 6, 2014 Before: SMITH, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Filed: January 15, 2014) _ OPINION _ SMITH, Circuit Judge. O
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-2665 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHEZAREE B. HALL, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2-11-cr-00473-002 District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 6, 2014 Before: SMITH, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Filed: January 15, 2014) _ OPINION _ SMITH, Circuit Judge. On..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-2665
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHEZAREE B. HALL,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-11-cr-00473-002
District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 6, 2014
Before: SMITH, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 15, 2014)
_____________________
OPINION
_____________________
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
On a cool fall morning in September of 2010, law enforcement authorities
executed a search warrant of, inter alia, a house situated at 409 West Second
Street, Birdsboro, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Chezaree B. Hall resided in the
1
house with her two minor sons, her significant other, Leon Stanton, and his minor
daughter. Because of concerns about illegal weapons in the residence and because
law enforcement authorities “wanted to protect the young children from any
violence,” officers awakened Hall and the other residents of the house early in the
morning and claimed that they needed to leave the premises because of a natural
gas leak. As Stanton and the other residents left the home, he was arrested. Hall
and the children were directed to stand immediately across the street.
A SWAT team member present at the scene noticed that Hall “was clutching
her pocketbook very tightly” with “both arms around it.” Finding this conduct
suspicious, the SWAT member informed a detective of the Pottstown Police
Department. The detective thought it unusual that Hall had taken the time to
collect her pocketbook, while failing to retrieve a coat for herself or to fully dress
her children. Because the detective knew of Stanton’s history of violence and
because the detective was concerned that guns -- suspected of being in the house --
might now be in the pocketbook, he advised Hall that he needed to take her
pocketbook. The weight of the pocketbook heightened his concern, and when the
detective opened it, he found two guns and a bag containing drugs.
Hall unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from her
pocketbook, claiming that the search warrant did not authorize searching her. The
District Court concluded that the warrant was irrelevant as the detective had
2
searched the pocketbook because he had a “reasonable suspicion that she was
armed and dangerous.” Supp. app. 51. Thereafter, Hall proceeded to trial and a
jury convicted her of committing two controlled substances offenses in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 860(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and of possessing a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Hall contends the District Court erred in denying her motion to suppress. 1
“We review the District Court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to
the underlying factual determinations but exercise plenary review over the District
Court’s application of law to those facts.” United States v. Stabile,
633 F.3d 219,
230 (3d Cir. 2011). The District Court did not err. The detective’s search was
permissible under Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise
appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3