Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 19-13184 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20833-DPG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KIRKLAND ALONDO JONES,
Defendant-Appellant. ________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 14, 2020)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kirkland Jones appeals his conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm
and ammunition as a convicted felon. Jones moved to suppress evidence of the Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 2 of 7
firearm, arguing that the detective who conducted the traffic stop resulting in the
discovery of the firearm lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
effectuate the stop. The district court denied his motion, concluding that the
detective had reasonable suspicion to stop Jones’s vehicle and, alternatively, he
had probable cause based on Jones’s reckless driving. On appeal, Jones challenges
both of those determinations. He argues that, under the totality of the
circumstances, there was no particularized, reasonable suspicion that he was
engaged in criminal wrongdoing and that the lapse in time between his alleged
traffic violation and his seizure staled any probable cause. After careful
consideration and review, we affirm.
In October 2018, while at a Quick Stop convenience store, Jones witnessed a
car drop off an individual who had been shot. After walking toward the shooting
victim, Jones entered his gray vehicle and left the store.
On the same day, Detective Derek Rodriguez responded to a police radio
call about a shooting in a high crime area. After driving around the area, he found
no evidence of a shooting. A second radio call then reported a shooting at the
Quick Stop store Jones had left. Rodriguez headed toward the store. On his way
to the store, he encountered a gray vehicle driving “a little reckless” such that he
had to “swerve” to avoid a collision with the vehicle. Doc. 61 at 35. 1 He later
1 “Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket. 2 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 3 of 7
identified the driver as Jones. Because Rodriguez’s primary concern was
responding to the shooting, he did not initiate a traffic stop.
Once Rodriguez arrived at the Quick Stop, he tried to gather information
about the shooting. He spoke to an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, Zane Dodds, who described a silver or grey vehicle fleeing from the
direction of the store when Dodds had separately responded to the first report of a
shooting. Dodds told the Rodriquez that the vehicle had a “J” in its license plate
number, the driver was a black male who was very animated and honking his horn
and cutting in front of traffic, and the driver may have had something to do with
the shooting. With this description, Rodriguez surmised that Dodds had seen the
same vehicle he had previously encountered. Suspecting that the driver of the
vehicle may be connected to the shooting, Rodriguez left to canvass the
neighborhood in hopes of finding the vehicle.
While Rodriguez was searching for the vehicle, it passed him going in the
opposite direction. He turned around to initiate a traffic stop. Driving behind the
vehicle, Rodriguez saw that the license plate of the vehicle included the letter “J.”
He also noticed Jones looking into his rear-view mirror with a “deer in the
headlights” look on his face and saw Jones toss something that looked like a white
piece of paper out of his window. Jones then stopped his vehicle. After he stepped
3 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 4 of 7
out of the vehicle, Rodriguez performed a pat down and discovered a firearm in
Jones’s waistband.
A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment against Jones, charging
that he, “having been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year, did knowingly possess a firearm and ammunition in
and affecting interstate and foreign commerce,” in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). Doc. 5 at 1. Jones filed a motion to suppress the
firearm recovered by Rodriguez. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation denying Jones’s motion. The district
court adopted the report and recommendation. This appeal followed.2
A ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.
United States v. Gibbs, 917 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2019). We review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
We construe all the facts in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below.
Id. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we may review the entire
record. United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir. 2007).
Jones contends that Rodriguez violated his Fourth Amendment rights by
initiating the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion that Jones was engaged in
2 Jones entered a conditional guilty plea, with the government and Jones agreeing that that an order suppressing the evidence, or an appeal granting such relief, would be case dispositive. 4 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 5 of 7
criminal wrongdoing or probable cause based on Jones’s reckless driving. We
disagree. Rodriguez initiated the traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of the
firearm based on reasonable suspicion that Jones was involved in the convenience
store shooting. Thus, he did not violate Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Evidence obtained
through unconstitutional searches and seizures is generally inadmissible. Mapp v.
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654-55 (1961).
When law enforcement stops a vehicle, a Fourth Amendment “seizure”
occurs. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996). A traffic stop is
valid if it is based on either: (i) “probable cause to believe that a traffic violation
has occurred;” or (ii) “reasonable suspicion in accordance with Terry [v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1, 30 (1968)].” United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.
2008); see also Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014). Because the
district court primarily rejected Jones’s motion on reasonable suspicion grounds,
we address those grounds. 3
3 Given our conclusion that Dodds had reasonable suspicion to stop Jones, we do not consider whether Jones’s reckless driving provided probable cause for the traffic stop. 5 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 6 of 7
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 19-13184 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20833-DPG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KIRKLAND ALONDO JONES,
Defendant-Appellant. ________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 14, 2020)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kirkland Jones appeals his conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm
and ammunition as a convicted felon. Jones moved to suppress evidence of the Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 2 of 7
firearm, arguing that the detective who conducted the traffic stop resulting in the
discovery of the firearm lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
effectuate the stop. The district court denied his motion, concluding that the
detective had reasonable suspicion to stop Jones’s vehicle and, alternatively, he
had probable cause based on Jones’s reckless driving. On appeal, Jones challenges
both of those determinations. He argues that, under the totality of the
circumstances, there was no particularized, reasonable suspicion that he was
engaged in criminal wrongdoing and that the lapse in time between his alleged
traffic violation and his seizure staled any probable cause. After careful
consideration and review, we affirm.
In October 2018, while at a Quick Stop convenience store, Jones witnessed a
car drop off an individual who had been shot. After walking toward the shooting
victim, Jones entered his gray vehicle and left the store.
On the same day, Detective Derek Rodriguez responded to a police radio
call about a shooting in a high crime area. After driving around the area, he found
no evidence of a shooting. A second radio call then reported a shooting at the
Quick Stop store Jones had left. Rodriguez headed toward the store. On his way
to the store, he encountered a gray vehicle driving “a little reckless” such that he
had to “swerve” to avoid a collision with the vehicle. Doc. 61 at 35. 1 He later
1 “Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket. 2 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 3 of 7
identified the driver as Jones. Because Rodriguez’s primary concern was
responding to the shooting, he did not initiate a traffic stop.
Once Rodriguez arrived at the Quick Stop, he tried to gather information
about the shooting. He spoke to an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, Zane Dodds, who described a silver or grey vehicle fleeing from the
direction of the store when Dodds had separately responded to the first report of a
shooting. Dodds told the Rodriquez that the vehicle had a “J” in its license plate
number, the driver was a black male who was very animated and honking his horn
and cutting in front of traffic, and the driver may have had something to do with
the shooting. With this description, Rodriguez surmised that Dodds had seen the
same vehicle he had previously encountered. Suspecting that the driver of the
vehicle may be connected to the shooting, Rodriguez left to canvass the
neighborhood in hopes of finding the vehicle.
While Rodriguez was searching for the vehicle, it passed him going in the
opposite direction. He turned around to initiate a traffic stop. Driving behind the
vehicle, Rodriguez saw that the license plate of the vehicle included the letter “J.”
He also noticed Jones looking into his rear-view mirror with a “deer in the
headlights” look on his face and saw Jones toss something that looked like a white
piece of paper out of his window. Jones then stopped his vehicle. After he stepped
3 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 4 of 7
out of the vehicle, Rodriguez performed a pat down and discovered a firearm in
Jones’s waistband.
A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment against Jones, charging
that he, “having been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year, did knowingly possess a firearm and ammunition in
and affecting interstate and foreign commerce,” in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). Doc. 5 at 1. Jones filed a motion to suppress the
firearm recovered by Rodriguez. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation denying Jones’s motion. The district
court adopted the report and recommendation. This appeal followed.2
A ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.
United States v. Gibbs, 917 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2019). We review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
We construe all the facts in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below.
Id. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we may review the entire
record. United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir. 2007).
Jones contends that Rodriguez violated his Fourth Amendment rights by
initiating the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion that Jones was engaged in
2 Jones entered a conditional guilty plea, with the government and Jones agreeing that that an order suppressing the evidence, or an appeal granting such relief, would be case dispositive. 4 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 5 of 7
criminal wrongdoing or probable cause based on Jones’s reckless driving. We
disagree. Rodriguez initiated the traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of the
firearm based on reasonable suspicion that Jones was involved in the convenience
store shooting. Thus, he did not violate Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Evidence obtained
through unconstitutional searches and seizures is generally inadmissible. Mapp v.
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654-55 (1961).
When law enforcement stops a vehicle, a Fourth Amendment “seizure”
occurs. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996). A traffic stop is
valid if it is based on either: (i) “probable cause to believe that a traffic violation
has occurred;” or (ii) “reasonable suspicion in accordance with Terry [v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1, 30 (1968)].” United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.
2008); see also Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014). Because the
district court primarily rejected Jones’s motion on reasonable suspicion grounds,
we address those grounds. 3
3 Given our conclusion that Dodds had reasonable suspicion to stop Jones, we do not consider whether Jones’s reckless driving provided probable cause for the traffic stop. 5 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 6 of 7
“[L]aw enforcement agents may briefly stop a moving automobile to
investigate a reasonable suspicion that its occupants are involved in criminal
activity.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 226 (1985). Reasonable
suspicion is “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the
evidence” and less than probable cause. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7
(1989). The Fourth Amendment nevertheless requires that the police officer
articulate facts that provide some minimal, particularized, and objective
justification for the stop. United States v. Campbell, 912 F.3d 1340, 1349 (11th
Cir. 2019).
In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, courts must review the
“totality of the circumstances” to ascertain whether the detaining officer had a
“particularized and objective basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing. United States
v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). In addition, a reviewing court must give due
weight to the officer’s own experience and specialized training from which he may
make inferences about the cumulative information available to him. Id.
None of the suspect’s actions, however, need to be criminal on their face.
United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 1995). The rule is not
concerned with “hard certainties, but with probabilities,” and therefore law
enforcement officers may rely on “common sense conclusions.” United States v.
Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981). An individual’s proximity to illegal activity
6 Case: 19-13184 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 7 of 7
may be considered, as well as “the relevant characteristics of a location.” United
States v. Nunez, 455 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted).
Jones argues that the facts known to Rodriguez were not enough to support
reasonable suspicion. However, at the time Rodriguez stopped Jones, he had the
following information: that (1) there were reports of a shooting victim at the Quick
Stop convenience store, (2) Dodds witnessed a gray vehicle driving erratically
from the direction of the store, (3) Rodriguez witnessed what he believed was the
same car driving erratically in a high crime area, and (4) Jones’s vehicle matched
the description given by Dodds.
Taken together, this information provided a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting that the driver of the vehicle had been involved in the
shooting. That Jones was ultimately not involved does not undercut this
reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, Rodriguez did not violate Jones’s Fourth
Amendment rights, and the district court did not err in denying Jones’s motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.