United States v. Gatling

Opinion

marked with a bright line." United States v. Devaugh, 422 F. Supp. 3d 104, 114 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Hall v. District of Columbia, 867 F.3d 138, 153 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). Rather, the "scope of the intrusion permitted will vary to some extent with the particular facts and circumstances of each case." Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983). Courts consider objective and subjective factors, including "the officer's intent in stopping the citizen; the impression conveyed to the citizen as to whether he was in custody or only briefly detained for questioning; the length of the stop; the questions, if any, asked; and the extent of the search, if any, made." See United States v. White, 648 F.2d 29, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

The Terry stop at issue here did not become an arrest until after Officer Mekhael found the handgun in Gatling's satchel. Fewer than five minutes elapsed between Gatling's first interaction with Officer Mekhael and the search of the satchel. See Mekhael BWC at 09:11:40-09:16:00. Cf United States v. Hutchinson, 408 F.3d 796, 801-02 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (prolonging Terry stop two to five minutes to run records check did not violate Fourth Amendment). The stop lasted this long in part because Gatling "refus[ed] to comply with .. . the pat down" and "actively resisted handcuffs" by "twisting his body." See Hearing Tr. at 30:5-6, 32:21-25 (Officer Mekhael: "[I]t took a minute to actually secure him in handcuffs."). Officer Mekhael also told Gatling he was being stopped for investigation, not that he was being arrested, and he did not ask probing questions about Gatling's conduct. Mekhael BWC at 09:13:00-09:13:25. These facts all suggest that during the relevant time period, the stop remained a stop. See White, 648 F .3d at 34.

Gatling maintains that by pinning him against the small fence surrounding the stoop and using handcuffs, the officers transformed the Terry stop into an arrest. Def.'s Mot.