UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 20-cr-00280 (TSC) ) DEANGELO WILLIAMS ) ) Defendant. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Deangelo Williams has been indicted on one count of unlawful possession of a firearm
and ammunition by a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Williams has moved to suppress the
gun recovered after he was seized by the police. ECF No. 20, Def. Mot. The court held hearings
on the motion on June 23, 2021 and July 14, 2021, during which the parties examined
Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Officer Wade Cress and proffered image and video
evidence. For the reasons set forth below, and upon consideration of the record, the court will
DENY the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Based on the testimony from the hearing, as well as the record herein, the court finds the
following: On Dec. 2, 2020, Officer Cress and two other MPD officers, Officer Tyquan Brown
and Officer Ahmed Dorghoud, were patrolling the 200 block of V Street NW in response to a
series of calls reporting the sounds of gunshots and illicit narcotics activity in the days prior. The
officers were in full MPD uniform and in a marked car. Shortly after 6 p.m., the officers were
conducting building checks in the area, including inside of 249 V Street NW, a three-story
apartment building managed by the District of Columbia Housing Authority. At approximately
1 6:07 p.m., Officers Cress, Brown, and Dorghoud opened the unlocked entrance door of the
building, which led onto an entryway foyer and staircase. The officers encountered five to six
men gathered inside the foyer.
As Officer Cress entered, Williams, who stood out due to his bright red puffy jacket
(visible in body worn camera footage), turned quickly away and ran up the staircase at the rear of
the foyer. Officer Cress immediately followed Williams and two other individuals up the
staircase. As he ran behind Williams, Officer Cress observed Williams moving his right arm
near the front and right portion of his body in a “digging” manner as if to secure something,
while his left arm swung freely. Officer Cress told Williams to show his hands and, when
Williams did not comply, drew his service weapon as he continued his pursuit up the stairwell.
Williams did not pause or otherwise respond to Officer Cress’s command or drawn weapon.
Upon reaching the third-floor landing, Williams dropped to the floor and attempted to
slide under the railing back towards the second-floor landing below Officer Cress. Looking up at
Williams from his position on the stairs between the second and third-floor landings, Officer
Cress observed Williams lying face down on the floor. Having begun to slide under the railing,
Williams rolled over and showed Officer Cress his open hands. As Williams continued to slide
under the third-floor railing, Officer Cress seized him and walked him downstairs. Officer Cress
then conducted a protective pat-down of Williams on the second-floor landing and found no
weapons on Williams’ person. Officer Cress then received a radio call for assistance from
Officer Dorghoud, who had pursued an individual outside of 249 V St. NW, placed Williams in
handcuffs and escorted him out of the building, where he was detained with other individuals.
Approximately seven minutes after Officer Cress walked Williams down to the second-
floor landing, and approximately eight minutes after the officers entered the foyer of 249 V St.
2 NW, the dispatcher alerted the officers that someone had reported a firearm on the third-floor
landing. Officer Cress, accompanied by Officer Brown, immediately returned to the building,
where they located the firearm on the floor, slightly behind where Williams had been lying
before he slid under the railing.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to suppress evidence must show that the evidence was seized as a result
of a violation of their constitutional rights. Wong-Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). To
do so here, Williams must show that the officers’ actions were unlawful and were the but-for and
proximate cause of the recovery of the firearm. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593–95
(2006) (holding that the exclusionary rule only applies when the interest protected by the
constitutional guarantee has been violated); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 86 (1998)
(holding that an individual seeking to have evidence suppressed must demonstrate that their
constitutional rights were violated).
III. DISCUSSION
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that the “right of the people to be secure in their
persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no [w]arrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV. Therefore, “all seizures,
even ones involving only a brief detention short of traditional arrest,” must be “founded upon
reasonable, objective justification.” United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784, 786 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(internal quotations and citations omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 247 (2015). Nonetheless,
“not all interactions between police officers and citizens amount to a ‘seizure’ for Fourth
Amendment purposes.” Id.
3 In asserting a Fourth Amendment violation, a defendant must establish that they had a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or a proprietary interest in the property
seized. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 93 (1980). “When individuals voluntarily
abandon property, they forfeit any expectation of privacy in it that they might have had.” United
States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 843, 845 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d
1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859 (1983)). Consequently, “a warrantless
search or seizure of property that has been abandoned does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”
Thomas, 864 F.2d at 845. The test to determine whether evidence has been voluntarily
abandoned “is an objective one,” focusing on the intent of the person who is alleged to have
abandoned the object, and this “intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other
objective facts.” Id. at 846 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In this case, immediately after the uniformed officers entered 249 V St. NW, Williams
fled up the stairway. Officer Cress immediately pursued him, and during the short chase up to
the third-floor landing, Officer Cress repeatedly ordered Williams to show his hands and then,
when Williams refused to do so, Cress drew his service weapon. Upon reaching the third-floor
landing, Williams lay face down on the ground and began to slide under the landing’s railing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 20-cr-00280 (TSC) ) DEANGELO WILLIAMS ) ) Defendant. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Deangelo Williams has been indicted on one count of unlawful possession of a firearm
and ammunition by a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Williams has moved to suppress the
gun recovered after he was seized by the police. ECF No. 20, Def. Mot. The court held hearings
on the motion on June 23, 2021 and July 14, 2021, during which the parties examined
Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Officer Wade Cress and proffered image and video
evidence. For the reasons set forth below, and upon consideration of the record, the court will
DENY the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Based on the testimony from the hearing, as well as the record herein, the court finds the
following: On Dec. 2, 2020, Officer Cress and two other MPD officers, Officer Tyquan Brown
and Officer Ahmed Dorghoud, were patrolling the 200 block of V Street NW in response to a
series of calls reporting the sounds of gunshots and illicit narcotics activity in the days prior. The
officers were in full MPD uniform and in a marked car. Shortly after 6 p.m., the officers were
conducting building checks in the area, including inside of 249 V Street NW, a three-story
apartment building managed by the District of Columbia Housing Authority. At approximately
1 6:07 p.m., Officers Cress, Brown, and Dorghoud opened the unlocked entrance door of the
building, which led onto an entryway foyer and staircase. The officers encountered five to six
men gathered inside the foyer.
As Officer Cress entered, Williams, who stood out due to his bright red puffy jacket
(visible in body worn camera footage), turned quickly away and ran up the staircase at the rear of
the foyer. Officer Cress immediately followed Williams and two other individuals up the
staircase. As he ran behind Williams, Officer Cress observed Williams moving his right arm
near the front and right portion of his body in a “digging” manner as if to secure something,
while his left arm swung freely. Officer Cress told Williams to show his hands and, when
Williams did not comply, drew his service weapon as he continued his pursuit up the stairwell.
Williams did not pause or otherwise respond to Officer Cress’s command or drawn weapon.
Upon reaching the third-floor landing, Williams dropped to the floor and attempted to
slide under the railing back towards the second-floor landing below Officer Cress. Looking up at
Williams from his position on the stairs between the second and third-floor landings, Officer
Cress observed Williams lying face down on the floor. Having begun to slide under the railing,
Williams rolled over and showed Officer Cress his open hands. As Williams continued to slide
under the third-floor railing, Officer Cress seized him and walked him downstairs. Officer Cress
then conducted a protective pat-down of Williams on the second-floor landing and found no
weapons on Williams’ person. Officer Cress then received a radio call for assistance from
Officer Dorghoud, who had pursued an individual outside of 249 V St. NW, placed Williams in
handcuffs and escorted him out of the building, where he was detained with other individuals.
Approximately seven minutes after Officer Cress walked Williams down to the second-
floor landing, and approximately eight minutes after the officers entered the foyer of 249 V St.
2 NW, the dispatcher alerted the officers that someone had reported a firearm on the third-floor
landing. Officer Cress, accompanied by Officer Brown, immediately returned to the building,
where they located the firearm on the floor, slightly behind where Williams had been lying
before he slid under the railing.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to suppress evidence must show that the evidence was seized as a result
of a violation of their constitutional rights. Wong-Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). To
do so here, Williams must show that the officers’ actions were unlawful and were the but-for and
proximate cause of the recovery of the firearm. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593–95
(2006) (holding that the exclusionary rule only applies when the interest protected by the
constitutional guarantee has been violated); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 86 (1998)
(holding that an individual seeking to have evidence suppressed must demonstrate that their
constitutional rights were violated).
III. DISCUSSION
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that the “right of the people to be secure in their
persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no [w]arrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV. Therefore, “all seizures,
even ones involving only a brief detention short of traditional arrest,” must be “founded upon
reasonable, objective justification.” United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784, 786 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(internal quotations and citations omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 247 (2015). Nonetheless,
“not all interactions between police officers and citizens amount to a ‘seizure’ for Fourth
Amendment purposes.” Id.
3 In asserting a Fourth Amendment violation, a defendant must establish that they had a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or a proprietary interest in the property
seized. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 93 (1980). “When individuals voluntarily
abandon property, they forfeit any expectation of privacy in it that they might have had.” United
States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 843, 845 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d
1169, 1172 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859 (1983)). Consequently, “a warrantless
search or seizure of property that has been abandoned does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”
Thomas, 864 F.2d at 845. The test to determine whether evidence has been voluntarily
abandoned “is an objective one,” focusing on the intent of the person who is alleged to have
abandoned the object, and this “intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other
objective facts.” Id. at 846 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In this case, immediately after the uniformed officers entered 249 V St. NW, Williams
fled up the stairway. Officer Cress immediately pursued him, and during the short chase up to
the third-floor landing, Officer Cress repeatedly ordered Williams to show his hands and then,
when Williams refused to do so, Cress drew his service weapon. Upon reaching the third-floor
landing, Williams lay face down on the ground and began to slide under the landing’s railing.
Only then, as Officer Cress looked up at Williams, did Williams roll over and raise his hands
such that they were open and visible. Williams proceeded to slide under the railing, with his
hands and body remaining visible throughout, at which point Officer Cress took Williams down
to the second-floor landing and immediately performed a protective pat down. Several minutes
later, upon receiving a third-party tip, the police located the firearm in question on the third-floor
landing, immediately adjacent to and slightly behind where Williams had been lying before
rolling over and raising his arms.
4 The court finds that these circumstances show that Williams intended to abandon the gun
on the landing before he submitted to the officers’ show of authority. As the Supreme Court held
in Hodari D, contraband that is abandoned by a person who is fleeing the police, before the
person is seized by police, is not “the fruit of a seizure” and therefore should not be suppressed.
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 629 (1991). Police pursuit alone “does not of itself
render an abandonment involuntary.” United States v. Brown, 663 F.2d 229, 231 (D.C. Cir.
1981) (en banc). Although the D.C. Circuit has explained that it “will not treat an item as
voluntarily abandoned when a person discards it due to the unlawful activities of police officers,
as where the disposal was prompted by police efforts to make an illegal arrest or search,” United
States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the court finds no facts indicating that
the gun was abandoned as the result of such illegal police conduct.
The court therefore finds that there was no illegal search or seizure before Williams
abandoned the firearm. Compare United States v. Aikens, 13 F. Supp. 2d 28, 33–34 (D.D.C.
1998) (finding that the defendant had not “discarded the gun in the trash can as a result of illegal
police conduct” where “no seizure of the defendant in the Fourth Amendment sense occurred
before the defendant abandoned the gun”), with Brodie, 742 F.3d at 1060–61 (finding that
recovery of weapons abandoned during flight after an initial seizure was not “sufficiently
attenuated from [an] illegal stop”) and Wood, 981 F.2d at 537 (affirming the suppression of a
firearm dropped by a defendant after police “had unlawfully ordered him to halt right there” and
the defendant immediately “froze in his tracks”). The fact that the police ordered Williams to
show his hands after he fled when they entered the building does not constitute a seizure.
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434–35 (1991). This Circuit has made clear that it is only
when “a person submits to the officer’s show of authority” prior to the purported abandonment
5 that Hodari D. becomes “inapplicable.” United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1280 (D.C. Cir.
2017) (citing Wood, 981 F.2d at 539–41). Here, as made clear by Officer Cress’s testimony and
the proffered video evidence, Williams did not yield to the officers’ show of authority, including
Officer Cress’s requests that he stop. Instead, he continued to flee. The Fourth Amendment
“does not remotely apply . . . to the prospect of a policeman yelling ‘Stop, in the name of the
law!’ at a fleeing form that continues to flee. That is no seizure.” Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626.
Thus, the officers' warrantless seizure of the gun from the landing in the stairwell does not
implicate the Fourth Amendment, see United States v. Wider, 951 F.2d 1283, 1285–86 (D.C. Cir.
1991) (defendant's acts of placing paper bag on steps in public courtyard and walking away from
the bag constituted abandonment); Thomas, 864 F.2d at 846 (defendant's acts of fleeing with a
gym bag into an apartment building upon seeing police, leaving bag on the floor in a public
hallway of building and walking away from bag constituted abandonment).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will DENY Williams’s Motion to Suppress, ECF No.
20. A corresponding order is forthcoming.
Date: September 30, 2021
Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge