united states v. carrigan, 1st cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Carrigan, 1st Cir. (2013)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carrigan-1st-cir-2013 1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 11- 1916

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

LAMAR CARRI GAN,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nancy Ger t ner , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, St ahl and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Shar on Fr ay- Wi t zer , f or appel l ant .Randal l E. Kr omm, Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef f or appel l ee.

J ul y 19, 2013



TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Lamar Car r i gan ( " Car r i gan" )

pl ed gui l t y t o one count of bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a

f i r ear m, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . He di d so wi t hout

a pl ea agr eement and wi t hout r eser vi ng t he r i ght t o appeal t he

deni al of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess t he f i r ear m. He was sent enced

under t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act ( " ACCA" ) , 18 U. S. C. § 924( e) ,

t o 15 year s' i mpr i sonment and t hr ee year s of supervi sed r el ease.

He appeal s hi s convi ct i on on sever al gr ounds. Fi r st , he

ar gues t hat t he ent r y of a gui l t y pl ea wi t hout a r eser vat i on of t he

r i ght t o appeal t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess was t he r esul t

of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel . Second, he cont ends t hat he

suf f er ed pr ej udi ce f r om t he f ai l ur e t o r eser ve t he r i ght t o appeal

sai d mot i on and t hat t he pol i ce nei t her had r easonabl e suspi ci on t o

st op hi m nor pr obabl e cause t o ar r est hi m. Fi nal l y, r egar di ng hi s

sent ence, Car r i gan argues t hat he does not qual i f y as an armed

car eer cr i mi nal ( " ACC" ) , and t hat t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause i s

unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. We af f i r m.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Accor di ng t o 911 cal l t r anscr i pt s, at 1: 30 a. m. on

Febr uary 1, 2008, t he Bost on Pol i ce Depar t ment ( " BPD" ) r ecei ved a

911 cal l f r om a mot or i st who sai d t hat t he dr i ver of an Acur a had

pul l ed up al ongsi de hi m and i dent i f i ed hi msel f as " t he Bost on

Pol i ce" at t he i nt er sect i on of Col umbi a Road and Washi ngt on St r eet

i n Bost on. The dr i ver of t he Acur a asked i f t he mot or i st was

-2-



al one, t hen t ol d hi m t o pul l over . When t he cal l er pul l ed hi s

vehi cl e over , t he dr i ver of t he Acur a got out of hi s car ,

appr oached t he mot or i st ' s vehi cl e and poi nt ed a gun at t he

mot or i st ' s f ace. The mot or i st put hi s car i n dr i ve and sped away.

Soon af t er , t he Acur a sped past t he mot or i st down Qui ncy St r eet

t owar d Bever l y. The cal l er r epor t ed t o t he 911 oper at or t hat he

was f ol l owi ng t he Acur a and i t s l i cense pl at e number was 446A20.

The mot or i st sai d t he col or of t he Acur a was navy bl ue or bl ack,

and i dent i f i ed t he dr i ver as a bl ack man wear i ng a si deways,

br own- and- bl ue hat ( whi ch he al so descr i bed as t wo- t oned) , a bl ack

l eat her j acket and baggy j eans. The cal l er t ol d t he di spat cher hi s

name was J asmani e Gonzál ez, a name t he pol i ce coul d not l at er f i nd

by searchi ng pol i ce r ecor ds. He al so pr ovi ded hi s phone number so

he coul d be cal l ed back.

When t he 911 di spat cher cal l ed t he mot or i st back and

asked hi m where he was because an of f i cer needed t o t ake a r epor t ,

t he cal l er st at ed t hat he was i n Rosl i ndal e. However , he di d not

pr ovi de hi s home addr ess, decl i ned t o f i l e a pol i ce r epor t and

r ef used t o be i nvol ved i n t he mat t er any f ur t her . The di spat cher

cal l ed t he mot or i st a second t i me f or addi t i onal i nf or mat i on bef or e

br oadcast i ng t he r epor t t o pol i ce uni t s i n t he ar ea. The

di spat cher det ai l ed t he i nci dent and gave t he cal l er ' s descr i pt i on

of t he car , dr i ver , and t he r epor t ed l i cense pl at e number .

-3-



Accor di ng t o BPD Ser geant Thomas Br ooks' t est i mony dur i ng

t he suppr essi on hear i ng, t en mi nut es af t er t he di spat cher ' s

br oadcast , Sgt . Br ooks obser ved a vehi cl e f i t t i ng t he descr i pt i on

of t he car descr i bed by t he cal l er par ked on Sout hwood St r eet ,

Bost on, a shor t di st ance f r om a pub. The car was unoccupi ed.

Ser geant Br ooks r epor t ed t he car ' s l i cense pl at e number t o t he

di spat ch as 446AT2. The di spat cher t hen r esponded t hat t he car was

r egi st er ed t o an owner i n Nor wel l . Anot her of f i cer t hen br oadcast

t hat he bel i eved t he car was used by "Lamar Car r i ngt on, " who was

not t he r egi st er ed owner r epor t ed by di spat ch. At t hi s t i me, mor e

of f i cer s ar r i ved i n t he ar ea, i ncl udi ng Ser geant Det ect i ve J ohn

Fi t zger al d, who was i n pl ai n cl ot hes and dr i vi ng an unmar ked pol i ce

car . Fi t zger al d, who al so t est i f i ed, par ked across the st r eet f r om

t he Acur a. Several mar ked pol i ce car s wai t ed by t he near by

i nt er sect i on of Sout hwood and Edgewood, wher e t he Acur a woul d most

l i kel y have t o pass.

J ust bef or e 2: 00 a. m. , Fi t zger al d br oadcas t over t he

r adi o t hat he saw t he l i ght s i n t he Acur a t ur n on, i ndi cat i ng t hat

t he car was bei ng unl ocked by r emot e cont r ol . Soon af t er , a bl ack

mal e wear i ng a hat , l eat her j acket and j eans ent er ed t he vehi cl e

and began dr i vi ng t owar d t he i nt er sect i on wher e t he mar ked BPD car s

wai t ed. Fi t zger al d f ol l owed t he Acur a, mai nt ai ni ng a di st ance of

60 t o 70 f eet . As t he Acur a came around a cur ve, i t was possi bl e

f or t he dr i ver t o see t he mar ked car s at t he i nt er sect i on. The

-4-



dr i ver of t he Acur a t hen made a r i ght t ur n and pul l ed i nt o a

r esi dent i al dr i veway, dr i vi ng t o t he ver y end of i t and t ur ni ng t he

car ' s l i ght s of f . Fi t zger al d s t opped hi s car and t ol d al l of f i cer s

i n t he ar ea t o " st and by. "

The dr i ver backed down t he dr i veway, opened hi s door

br i ef l y, and t hen accel er at ed back up t he dr i veway. Sever al

of f i cer s, some wi t h t hei r weapons dr awn, appr oached t he vehi cl e.

The of f i cer s i dent i f i ed t hemsel ves as Bost on Pol i ce and t ol d t he

dr i ver t o r ai se hi s hands. One of t he of f i cer s opened t he

passenger ' s si de door , t ur ned of f t he i gni t i on, and put t he car i n

par k. Anot her of f i cer t hen pul l ed t he dr i ver , who was l at er

i dent i f i ed as Car r i gan, out of t he dr i ver ' s si de door . Car r i gan

was handcuf f ed, pushed t o t he gr ound, and pat - f r i sked. The

of f i cer s f ound a l oaded semi - aut omat i c f i r ear mi n Car r i gan' s j acket

pocket .

On November 18, 2010, af t er bei ng i ndi ct ed on one count

of bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m, Car r i gan f i l ed a

mot i on t o suppr ess t he f i r ear m and ammuni t i on, al l egi ng t hat t hey

wer e t he r esul t of an unl awf ul sear ch and sei zur e. Car r i gan

cont ended t hat t he of f i cer s l acked pr obabl e cause t o ar r est hi mand

l acked r easonabl e suspi ci on t o even st op hi m. The di st r i ct cour t

hel d a hear i ng on Febr uar y 8, 2011, on Car r i gan' s mot i on t o

suppr ess, where some of t he r ecor ded 911 cal l s were pl ayed. The

j udge st at ed t hat t her e was not much of a quest i on on t he

-5-



r easonabl e suspi ci on poi nt , and t hat i t was l i kel y t hat pr obabl e

cause f or t he ar r est woul d be est abl i shed as wel l , but want ed t o

l i st en t o t he r ecor di ngs i n f ul l bef or e f or mal l y di sposi ng of t he

mot i on. The j udge deni ed Car r i gan' s mot i on t o suppr ess on Febr uary

14, 2011, vi a el ect r oni c or der , not i ng t hat a memor andum woul d

f ol l ow.

On Mar ch 3, 2011, Car r i gan pl ed gui l t y. He di d so

wi t hout secur i ng a pl ea agr eement and wi t hout r eser vi ng t he r i ght

t o appeal t he deni al of hi s suppr essi on mot i on. At t he pl ea

hear i ng, t he government not ed t hat Car r i gan woul d be f aci ng a

mi ni mum of 15 year s i n pr i son because of hi s s t at us as an ACC.

Car r i gan' s at t or ney st at ed t o t he cour t t hat he had expl ai ned t hi s

t o Car r i gan, but al so sai d he i nt ended t o r ai se obj ect i ons t o

Car r i gan' s st at us as an ACC at t he sent enci ng hear i ng. The cour t

accept ed Car r i gan' s pl ea.

A Pr e- Sent ence Repor t ( " PSR" ) t hat i ssued on Apr i l 15,

2011, cl assi f i ed Car r i gan as an ACC. Car r i gan chal l enged hi s

st at us as an ACC, ar gui ng t hat he di d not possess t he r equi si t e

t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons f or vi ol ent f el oni es .

Based on Gui del i ne cal cul at i ons and Car r i gan' s ACC

st at us, t he cour t sent enced hi m t o t he mandat or y mi ni mum of 15

year s' i mpr i sonment as pr escr i bed by t he ACCA. Af t er t he sent ence

was i mposed, def ense counsel asked t he j udge t o i ssue t he

pr evi ousl y pr omi sed memor andum r egar di ng t he deni al of Car r i gan' s

-6-



mot i on t o suppr ess. The j udge r esponded wi t h sur pr i se, st at i ng

t hat , because Car r i gan had pl ed gui l t y shor t l y af t er t he deni al and

di d not r eser ve hi s r i ght t o appeal , she had not wr i t t en a

memor andum and woul d not i ssue one.

Car r i gan f i l ed t hi s t i mel y appeal . We t ake each of hi s

argument s i n t ur n.

II. Analysis

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Car r i gan' s f i r st ar gument on appeal i s t hat hi s counsel

was i nef f ect i ve because he advi sed Car r i gan t o ent er a st r ai ght

pl ea wi t hout i nf or mi ng hi m of t he consequences of not pr eservi ng

hi s ri ght t o appeal t he deni al of hi s suppr essi on mot i on. I n

suppor t of hi s ar gument , he posi t s t hat hi s at t or ney was act ual l y

unaware t hat Car r i gan woul d be unabl e t o appeal t he deni al of t he

mot i on t o suppr ess i f he pl ed wi t hout maki ng a r eser vat i on.

Accor di ng t o Car r i gan, i t i s appar ent f r om t he r ecor d t hat hi s

at t or ney was sur pr i sed when t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed he woul d be

unabl e t o appeal t he or der . 1

1 Car r i gan poi nt s t o t he f ol l owi ng exchange, whi ch t ook pl aceaf t er t he sent enci ng:

MR. DEMI SSI E: Your Honor , we had a mot i on t o suppresshear i ng, and t hat was deni ed, and a f i ndi ng and r ul i ngshave not been f i l ed.

THE COURT: But he' s pl ed gui l t y. He pl ed gui l t y wi t hout- -

MR. DEMI SSI E: Pr i or t o pl eadi ng gui l t y, you had a mot i on

-7-



To show t hat hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o counsel was

vi ol at ed, Car r i gan must est abl i sh t hat : ( 1) hi s at t or ney' s

per f or mance was def i ci ent under an obj ect i ve st andar d of

r easonabl eness; and ( 2) hi s def ense suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul t .

St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687- 88, 692 ( 1984) . To

demonst r at e pr ej udi ce, Car r i gan must " show a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y

t hat t he end r esul t of t he cr i mi nal pr ocess woul d have been more

f avor abl e" but f or def ense counsel ' s def i ci ent per f or mance.

Mi ssour i v. Fr ye, 132 S. Ct . 1399, 1409 ( 2012) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Moya, 676 F. 3d 1211, 1214 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) . Fai l ur e t o

sat i sf y one of t he St r i ckl and pr ongs i s f at al and, t her ef or e, we

ar e f r ee t o t ackl e ei t her pr ong f i r st . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Capar ot t a, 676 F. 3d 213, 219- 220 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

t o suppr ess - - THE COURT: No, I under st and t hat , but he pl ed gui l t y, nota condi t i onal pl ea, not a pl ea t hat woul d have pr eservedhi s r i ght s , but he pl ed gui l t y f ul l y.

MR. DEMI SSI E: Yes.

THE COURT: So I di dn' t f i ni sh t he f i ndi ngs because oncehe pl eads gui l t y and doesn' t pr eser ve t hat i ssue, t her e' sr eal l y no i ssue. Thi s was a f ul l pl ea, not a condi t i onalone, so I don' t t hi nk t hat you have an appel l at e basi s ont hat at al l .

MR. DEMI SSI E: Fr om t he deni al of t he mot i on t o suppr ess?

THE COURT: That ' s r i ght , because i f you want t o pl ea andpr eser ve your l egal r i ght s, you have t o do i t as acondi t i onal pl ea . . . .

-8-



As a gener al r ul e, i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel

cl ai ms must be r ai sed vi a a col l at er al at t ack, and not vi a di r ect

appeal . Uni t ed St at es v. Sol devi l a- López, 17 F. 3d 480, 485 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) . We have, however , l ong r ecogni zed t hat " wher e t he

cr i t i cal f act s ar e not genui nel y i n di sput e and t he r ecor d i s

suf f i ci ent l y devel oped t o al l ow r easoned consi der at i on of an

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m, " we can ent er t ai n i t . Capar ot t a, 676

F. 3d at 219 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzál ez- Ar i mont , 268 F. 3d 8,

13 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . Bot h par t i es agr ee t hat t he r ecor d i s

suf f i ci ent l y devel oped f or t hi s cour t t o det er mi ne i f Car r i gan

suf f er ed pr ej udi ce by not r eser vi ng t he r i ght t o appeal . For t he

r easons st at ed bel ow, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

deni ed t he mot i on t o suppr ess and t hat , t her ef or e, Car r i gan f ai l s

t o show he suf f er ed pr ej udi ce. Consequent l y, we do not r each t he

quest i on of counsel ' s i nef f ect i veness. See Capar ot t a, 676 F. 3d at

219- 20.

B. The Motion to Suppress

1. Reasonable Suspicion to Conduct a Terry Stop

I n r evi ewi ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess, we wi l l

r evi ew f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or and l egal concl usi ons de

novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 500 F. 3d 48, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . I n

t hi s case, t her e ar e no f act ual f i ndi ngs f or us t o r evi ew, gi ven

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not have t o i ssue t he memor andum

set t i ng f or t h t he r at i onal e f or i t s deni al of t he mot i on t o

-9-



suppr ess af t er Car r i gan pl ed. We t hus r evi ew Car r i gan' s Four t h

Amendment cl ai m de novo.

Car r i gan f i r st ai ms t o est abl i sh t hat t he pol i ce undul y

r el i ed on t he i nf ormat i on pr ovi ded by an anonymous 911 t i pst er and

t hat t hey l acked r easonabl e suspi ci on t o conduct an i nvest i gat or y

st op.

Our i nqui r y i n t hi s r egar d i s, of cour se, gui ded by t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s wat er shed deci si on i n Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1

( 1968) . I n Ter r y, t he Cour t del i neat ed t he basel i ne t est f or

det er mi ni ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y, under t he Four t h Amendment , of

i nvest i gat or y st ops conduct ed by pol i ce of f i cer s. Br own, 500 F. 3d

at 54. Under Ter r y, "[ p] ol i ce of f i cer s may l awf ul l y ef f ect an

i nvest i gat or y st op as l ong as t hey can ' poi nt t o speci f i c and

ar t i cul abl e f act s whi ch, t aken t oget her wi t h r at i onal i nf er ences

f r om t hose f act s, r easonabl y war r ant ' such an i nt r usi on. " I d.

( ci t i ng Ter r y, 392 U. S. at 21) . Reasonabl e suspi ci on i s a concept

t hat l i es somewhere bet ween a vi scer al hunch and pr obabl e cause.

See I l l i noi s v. War dl ow, 528 U. S. 119, 123 ( 2000) ( " r easonabl e

suspi ci on" i s a l ess demandi ng st andard t han pr obabl e cause and

r equi r es a showi ng consi der abl y l ess t han pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence" but st i l l r equi r es "at l east a mi ni mal l evel of obj ect i ve

j ust i f i cat i on f or maki ng t he st op" ) . Whet her t he of f i cer s had

enough i nf ormat i on t o possess r easonabl e suspi ci on " must be

eval uat ed t hr ough a br oad- based consi derat i on of al l t he at t endant

-10-



ci r cumst ances. " Br own, 500 F. 3d at 54 ( ci t i ng Fl or i da v. Royer ,

460 U. S. 491, 500 ( 1983) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Chhi en, 266 F. 3d 1, 5

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) .

As r ecount ed above, a 911 cal l er r epor t ed bei ng t he

vi ct i m of an assaul t . He pr ovi ded a descr i pt i on of t he al l eged

per pet r at or of t he cr i me and of t he car he was dr i vi ng, a l i cense

pl at e number , t he di r ect i on t he vehi cl e was t r avel i ng and a phone

number wher e he was success f ul l y r eached t wi ce. He provi ded some

of t hi s i nf or mat i on t o t he 911 oper at or whi l e t he pur por t ed

per pet r at or ' s vehi cl e was st i l l al l egedl y i n hi s si ght . He was

t hen cal l ed back t wi ce and t wi ce he r ecount ed t he i nci dent i n a way

t hat seems r easonabl y consi st ent and coherent .

Car r i gan ar gues t hat t he descr i pt i on of t he cl ot hes t he

al l eged per pet r at or was wear i ng di f f er ed i n sever al aspect s f r om

what Car r i gan was wear i ng when t he pol i ce f i r st obser ved hi m

appr oachi ng t he car , and t hat , i n any case, t he descr i pt i on was

cor r obor at ed onl y i n i nnocent det ai l s. The cal l er sai d t he

per pet r at or of t he al l eged assaul t was wear i ng a br own- and- bl ue hat

( whi ch he al so descr i bed as t wo- t oned) , a bl ack l eat her j acket and

baggy j eans. Sgt . Fi t zger al d t est i f i ed dur i ng t he evi dent i ar y

hear i ng t hat , when he f i r st spot t ed Car r i gan comi ng out of t he bar ,

he was wear i ng a bl ue and orange hat ( wi t h al t ernat i ng bl ue and

or ange panel s al l t he way ar ound) , a br own l eat her j acket wi t h

orange square pat ches and bl ack j eans. We t hi nk t hat t he

-11-



descr i pt i ons suf f i ci ent l y mat ched and t hat , al t hough t he cal l er

st at ed t hat t he hat was br own and bl ue, and i t t ur ned out t o be

or ange and bl ue, t he di scr epancy i s not so l ar ge as t o war r ant a

f i ndi ng of an i mpr oper i dent i f i cat i on. On t he same t oken, t he

cal l er descr i bed t he j acket as bl ack l eat her when, accor di ng t o

Sgt . Fi t zger al d, i t was a l eat her j acket wi t h br own and or ange

pat ches. We, however , do not t hi nk t he l ack of a per f ect mat ch i s

di sposi t i ve i n t hi s case.

Car r i gan f ur t her ar gues t hat , asi de f r omcor r obor at i on of

i nnocent and r eadi l y observabl e det ai l s r egar di ng hi s gener al

appear ance, t he t i pst er di d not pr ovi de i nf or mat i on t hat coul d be

deemed r el i abl e. I n f act , he says, t he cal l er onl y pr ovi ded a

l i cense pl at e and car t ype, whi ch ar e al so readi l y obser vabl e

el ement s t hat coul d have been used, f or exampl e, by someone t r yi ng

t o f r ame hi m. He ci t es Uni t ed St at es v. Mont ei r o, 447 F. 3d 39 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) , i n suppor t of hi s ar gument t hat cor r obor at i on of a

l i cense pl at e number does not pr ovi de r easonabl e suspi ci on. I n

Mont ei r o, we r evi ewed t he r el i abi l i t y of a t i p r ecei ved t hr ough a

t hi r d par t y t hat i ncl uded a l i cense pl at e number f or a car t hat was

spot t ed by pol i ce days af t er t he t i p was r ecei ved. We f ound t hat

t he mer e of f er i ng of a l i cense pl at e number by a t i pst er , al t hough

pr ovi di ng "a sol i d means of i dent i [ f yi ng] " t he suspect , di d not hi ng

t o cor r obor at e t he t i pst er ' s asser t i on t hat t he suspect had

commi t t ed a cr i me. I d. at 47. We al so st at ed, however , t hat t he

-12-



amount of i nf or mat i on " r equi r ed t o est abl i sh t he r equi si t e quant um

of suspi ci on" depends on t he r el i abi l i t y of t he t i p. I d. at 48.

That i s, t he mor e unr el i abl e a t i p appear s, t he mor e i nf or mat i on

wi l l be r equi r ed t o est abl i sh r easonabl e suspi ci on.

Car r i gan' s ar gument mi ght be st r onger i f t he pol i ce had

r el i ed sol el y on t he cal l er ' s i nf or mat i on and moved i n t o det ai n

Car r i gan as soon as t hey spot t ed hi ml eavi ng t he bar and wal ki ng t o

t he Acur a. But t he i nf or mat i on t hat t he pol i ce had at t he t i me

t hey conduct ed t he Ter r y st op di d not consi st of i nf or mat i on

pr ovi ded by t he 911 cal l er al one. I ndeed, once Car r i gan got i nt o

t he Acur a, t he pol i ce began obser vi ng hi m. They saw t hat , af t er

dr i vi ng down t he st r eet , Car r i gan appar ent l y at t empt ed t o avoi d

sever al pol i ce car s t hat wer e bl ocki ng t he upcomi ng i nt er sect i on

and act ed suspi ci ousl y when he ent er ed a dr i veway, dr ove t o t he

ver y end of i t and shut of f t he car ' s l i ght s. The pol i ce t hen

f ur t her obser ved Car r i gan back down t he dr i veway al most al l t he way

t o t he st r eet , open and cl ose hi s door and dr i ve up t he dr i veway

once agai n. The Supr eme Cour t has st at ed t hat " evasi ve behavi or i s

anot her per t i nent f act or i n det er mi ni ng r easonabl e suspi ci on. "

Wardl ow, 528 U. S. at 124. Gi ven what t he of f i cer s al r eady knew,

t hey r easonabl y i nt er pr et ed Car r i gan' s behavi or as unpr ovoked

f l i ght war r ant i ng f ur t her i nvest i gat i on. Al t hough i t i s wel l -

set t l ed t hat i ndi vi dual s have a f undament al r i ght t o be l ef t al one,

i t i s al so set t l ed t hat " [ f ] l i ght , by i t s ver y nat ur e, i s not

-13-



' goi ng about one' s busi ness ' ; i n f act , i t i s j ust t he opposi t e. "

I d. at 125. I t was at t hi s poi nt , once t hey had mat ched t he

descr i pt i on pr ovi ded by t he cal l er and had obser ved Car r i gan

behavi ng suspi ci ousl y, t hat t he of f i cer s deci ded t o move i n.

A br oad- based consi der at i on of t he di f f er ent pi eces of

i ndi vi dual i nf or mat i on t he pol i ce possessed up t o t he poi nt of t he

st op l eads us t o concl ude t hat t he of f i cer s had r easonabl e

suspi ci on t o i ni t i at e a Ter r y st op. See Br own, 500 F. 3d at 54. We

emphasi ze t hat i t i s t he sum t ot al of t he avai l abl e i nf or mat i on

t hat j ust i f i es t he f i ndi ng of r easonabl e suspi ci on; no si ngl e

i ndi vi dual pi ece of i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by ei t her t he cal l er or by

t he pol i ce' s di r ect obser vat i on of Car r i gan woul d be enough, on i t s

own, t o j ust i f y t he Ter r y st op. We now t ur n t o Car r i gan' s second

argument r egardi ng suppr essi on: t hat t he Ter r y st op became a de

f act o ar r est , and t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer s l acked pr obabl e cause t o

ar r est hi m.

2. Probable Cause to Make an Arrest

Accor di ng t o Sgt . Fi t zger al d, once Car r i gan had dr i ven up

t he dr i veway a second t i me, sever al of f i cer s, i ncl udi ng hi msel f ,

appr oached t he Acur a. Some of t he of f i cer s had t hei r guns dr awn.

The of f i cer s yel l ed t o Car r i gan t o show hi s hands. Two of f i cer s

t hen ent er ed t he Acur a t hr ough t he passenger - si de door , t ur ned of f

t he engi ne and t ook physi cal cont r ol of Car r i gan. Once t he

of f i cer s had Car r i gan on t he gr ound and on hi s s t omach, t hey

-14-



handcuf f ed hi m and pat t ed hi m down. They di scover ed a f i r ear m i n

t he f r ont l ef t pocket of hi s j acket . Accor di ng t o t he PSR,

Car r i gan di sobeyed t he command t o show hi s hands. Car r i gan di d not

di sput e t hi s asser t i on i n hi s obj ect i ons t o t he PSR.

Car r i gan ar gues t hat , as soon as t he of f i cer s physi cal l y

went i nt o t he car and pul l ed hi m out , t he Ter r y st op became a de

f act o ar r est . He cont ends t hat , si nce t he of f i cer s l acked pr obabl e

cause t o ar r est hi m, t he sei zur e of t he f i r ear m occur r ed i n t he

cont ext of an i l l egal ar r est and shoul d be suppr essed. The

gover nment , f or i t s par t , ar gues t hat t he pol i ce may t ake physi cal

cont r ol of and handcuf f a per son wi t hout t ur ni ng a Ter r y st op i nt o

a de f act o ar r est when i t i s necessar y "t o pr ot ect t hei r own saf et y

and t he saf et y of ot her s i n t he ar ea. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mohammed,

630 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , cer t deni ed 131 S. Ct . 2127 ( 2011) .

A de f act o ar r est mat er i al i zes "when a r easonabl e per son

i n t he suspect ' s posi t i on woul d have under st ood, gi ven t he

ci r cumst ances, t hat he was essent i al l y under ar r est . " I d. . I t can

saf el y be sai d t hat when r easonabl e peopl e ar e f or cef ul l y pul l ed

out of a car and handcuf f ed, t hey wi l l gener al l y under st and

t hemsel ves t o be under ar r est . We have st at ed, however , t hat due

t o t he wi de and unpr edi ct abl e ar r ay of scenar i os of f i cer s f ace i n

t he cour se of conf r ont i ng suspect s, " t he t ouchst one i s t he

r easonabl eness of t he measur e under t aken t o quel l or conf i r m t he

of f i cer s ' suspi ci ons. " I d. ( quot i ng Kl aucke v. Dal y, 595 F. 3d

-15-



20, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . When t he gover nment i nt ends t o j ust i f y t he use of

handcuf f s i n t he cont ext of a Ter r y st op i t must " poi nt t o some

speci f i c f act or ci r cumst ance t hat coul d have suppor t ed a

r easonabl e bel i ef " t hat t he use of handcuf f s was necessar y. Uni t ed

St at es v. Meadows, 571 F. 3d 131, 141 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a- Col ón, 157 F. 3d 9, 18- 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) .

The gover nment has i ndeed poi nt ed t o speci f i c

ci r cumst ances t hat suppor t t he of f i cer s' r easonabl e bel i ef t hat

r est r ai ni ng Car r i gan wi t h handcuf f s was necessar y t o conduct t he

Ter r y st op. I t speci f i cal l y ar gues t hat Car r i gan had not put t he

car i n par k and t hat t he engi ne was st i l l r unni ng when t he of f i cer s

appr oached t he vehi cl e, whi ch i ncr eased t he dangerousness of t he

si t uat i on gi ven t hat he coul d have used t he car as a weapon. The

evi dence pr esent ed dur i ng t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng, i . e. , Sgt .

Fi t zger al d' s t est i mony and t he phot ogr aphs of t he dr i veway,

est abl i shed t hat t he dr i veway was nar r ow. Sgt . Fi t zger al d

t est i f i ed t hat t he space bet ween t he f ence and t he dr i ver si de of

t he car was under 18 i nches. The government al so poi nt s out t hat

t he of f i cer s s uspect ed t hat Car r i gan was ar med and t hat , i f

cor ner ed, he coul d r eact vi ol ent l y. Gi ven t he conf i ned space i n

whi ch t he pol i ce encount er ed Car r i gan, t he f act t hat t he car was

st i l l r unni ng and i n dr i ve, and t he f act t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer s

r easonabl y suspect ed t hat Car r i gan was ar med, we must concl ude t hat

-16-



t he of f i cer s act ed r easonabl y i n maki ng sur e Car r i gan was s ei zed

and handcuf f ed as par t of t he i nvest i gat or y st op. Ther ef or e, t he

f or cef ul sei zur e of Car r i gan and t he use of handcuf f s i n t hi s

par t i cul ar case di d not t ur n t he l awf ul Ter r y st op i nt o a de f act o

ar r est because t he of f i cer s had a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat such

measur es were necessary t o pr ot ect t hei r own saf et y. We now t ur n

t o Car r i gan' s chal l enge t o hi s sent ence.

C. Sentencing under the ACCA

1. Applicable Law

Whet her a def endant qual i f i es as an ACC i s a quest i on of

l aw t hat we r evi ew de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Mast er a, 435 F. 3d 56,

59 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Accor di ngl y, we r evi ew de novo t he l egal

quest i on of whet her a pr i or convi ct i on qual i f i es as a "vi ol ent

f el ony. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sánchez- Ramí r ez, 570 F. 3d 75, 81 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) .

Car r i gan pl ed gui l t y t o bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of

an i l l egal f i r ear m. See 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . The ACCA

pr escr i bes a 15- year mandat or y mi ni mums ent ence f or an of f ender who

has t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons " f or a vi ol ent f el ony or a ser i ous dr ug

of f ense" when t he unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear m occur r ed. I d.

§ 924( e) ( 1) . "Vi ol ent f el ony" i s def i ned as:

any cr i me puni shabl e f or a t er m exceedi ng oneyear . . . i nvol vi ng t he use or car r yi ng of af i r ear m, kni f e, or dest r uct i ve devi ce . . .t hat : ( i ) has as an el ement t he use, at t empt eduse, or t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ceagai nst t he per son of anot her [ t he f or ce

-17-



cl ause] ; or ( i i ) i s bur gl ar y, ar son, orext or t i on, i nvol ves use of expl osi ves, orot her wi se i nvol ves conduct t hat pr esent s aser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t oanot her [ t he r esi dual cl ause] .

I d. at 924( e) ( 2) ( B) .

I n det er mi ni ng whet her a pr i or convi ct i on const i t ut es a

vi ol ent f el ony under t he ACCA, cour t s empl oy a cat egor i cal

appr oach. Uni t ed St at es v. Ri char ds, 456 F. 3d 260, 262- 63 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) . We t hus det er mi ne i f t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on of t he

pr i or of f ense f i t s t he ACCA' s def i ni t i ons of "vi ol ent f el ony" under

ei t her cl ause. I n per f or mi ng t hi s cat egor i cal i nqui r y, cour t s

" t ypi cal l y mus t l i mi t [ t hei r ] i nqui r y t o ' t he f act of convi ct i on

and t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on of t he pr i or of f ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es

v. Moor e, 286 F. 3d 47, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng Tayl or v. Uni t ed

St at es, 495 U. S. 575, 602 ( 1990) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252, 256 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " Thi s appr oach i s

deemed cat egor i cal because we may consi der onl y t he of f ense' s l egal

def i ni t i on, f or goi ng any i nqui r y i nt o how t he def endant may have

commi t t ed t he of f ense. ") . I f a pr i or convi ct i on under st at e l aw i s

at i ssue, "[ s] t at e cour t const r uct i on of t he r el evant st at e l aw

di ct at es our r esul t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d 33, 41 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) .

Det er mi ni ng whet her a pr i or convi ct i on f al l s wi t hi n t he

scope of t he r esi dual cl ause i s somewhat mor e di f f i cul t when t he

pr i or convi ct i on r el at es t o a cr i me pr oscr i bed by a st at ut e t hat

-18-



cover s mul t i pl e of f enses. Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d at 256- 57. I f t hat

i s t he case, a set of r ul es di ct at es when t he convi ct i on may be

consi der ed f or pur poses of t he ACCA and when i t may not . A cour t

must f i r st det er mi ne whi ch of f ense or of f enses ser ved as t he

of f ense or of f enses of convi ct i on by l ooki ng at " a r est r i ct ed set

of document s ( e. g. , i ndi ct ment , pl ea col l oquy, j ur y i nst r uct i ons) . "

I d. at 257 ( quot i ng Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 13, 26

( 2005) ) . When t he document s do not i dent i f y whi ch of t he of f enses

pr oscr i bed was t he of f ense of convi ct i on, t he convi ct i on may be

used f or pur poses of t he ACCA onl y when al l of t he of f enses

pr oscri bed i n t he par t i cul ar st at ut e qual i f y as vi ol ent f el oni es

under t he ACCA. I d. I f t hat i s not t he case, t he convi ct i on may

not be used as an ACCA pr edi cat e. I d.

2. Carrigan's prior convictions

Car r i gan' s pr i or convi ct i ons, al l under Massachuset t s

l aw, i ncl ude: ( 1) a Mar ch 1996 convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y; ( 2) an

Oct ober 2000 convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est ; ( 3) a December 2000

convi ct i on f or assaul t wi t h a dangerous weapon; and ( 4) t wo May

2006 convi ct i ons f or assaul t and bat t er y on a pol i ce of f i cer and

assaul t and bat t ery wi t h a dangerous weapon. Car r i gan concedes hi s

1996 convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y i s a vi ol ent f el ony f or pur poses

of t he ACCA. He ar gues, however , t hat hi s ot her convi ct i ons cannot

be consi der ed " vi ol ent f el oni es" under t he ACCA i n hi s case because

i n 2008, when t he ar r est i n t hi s case t ook pl ace, no cour t had yet

-19-



f ound t hose speci f i c of f enses t o be ACCA pr edi cat es. He t hus

ar gues t hat count i ng t hese convi ct i ons agai nst hi mvi ol at ed hi s due

pr ocess r i ght s. I n suppor t of t hi s ar gument , he ci t es Uni t ed

St at es v. Lani er , 520 U. S. 259 ( 1997) , where t he Supr eme Cour t

expl ai ned t he f ai r war ni ng r equi r ement . He t hus r equest s t hat t he

we appl y i n hi s case " t he canon of st r i ct const r uct i on of cr i mi nal

st at ut es, or r ul e of l eni t y, [ whi ch] ensur es f ai r war ni ng by so

r esol vi ng ambi gui t y i n a cr i mi nal st at ut e as t o appl y i t onl y t o

conduct cl ear l y cover ed. " I d. at 266.

Cont r ar y t o what Car r i gan ar gues, Lani er st ands f or t he

pr oposi t i on t hat t he due pr ocess cl ause bar s t he appl i cat i on of a

novel const r uct i on of a st at ut e wher e t he scope of t he st at ut e i s

ambi guous. See i d. at 267 ( " [ T] he t ouchst one [ of t he due pr ocess

i nqui r y] i s whet her t he st at ut e, ei t her st andi ng al one or as

const r ued, made i t r easonabl y cl ear at t he r el evant t i me t hat t he

def endant ' s conduct was cr i mi nal . " ) . Lani er does not appl y wher e

t he scope of a st at ut e i s ascer t ai nabl e f r om t he pl ai n meani ng of

i t s wor ds. As expl ai ned above, t he scope of appl i cat i on of t he

ACCA i s f ai r l y cl ear bot h under t he f or ce cl ause and t he r esi dual

cl ause as t o t he t ype of of f enses cover ed. The f act t hat at t he

t i me Car r i gan commi t t ed t he i nst ant of f ense no cour t had f ound t hat

t he speci f i c convi ct i ons Car r i gan has under hi s bel t wer e ACCA

predi cat es does not mean t hat t he ACCA was ambi guous at t hat t i me

-20-



and t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he r ul e of l eni t y i s war r ant ed. We

t hus f i nd Car r i gan' s ar gument under Lani er unavai l i ng.

As di scussed bel ow, t wo of t he convi ct i ons i n quest i on

ar e ACCA pr edi cat es whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y consi der ed

i n sent enci ng hi m as an ACC. 2 Those t wo convi ct i ons, pl us

Car r i gan' s convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y, whi ch he concedes i s an

ACCA pr edi cat e, pr oper l y const i t ut e t hr ee pr i or convi ct i ons f or

vi ol ent f el oni es. We t ake each ar gument i n t ur n.

We f i r st t ackl e Car r i gan' s ar gument t hat hi s 1998

convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est cannot be consi der ed a vi ol ent

f el ony under t he ACCA. He ar gues t hat t he cr i me of r esi st i ng

ar r est may be commi t t ed r eckl ess l y, but does not f ur t her devel op

t hi s i ssue. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Weeks, we sai d t hat " r esi st i ng

ar r est [ under Massachuset t s l aw] qual i f i e[ s] as a ' cr i me of

vi ol ence' under U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2 [ t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne] ,

and because t hat Gui del i ne and t he ACCA are si mi l ar l y worded, " a

cour t may t r eat a convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est as a vi ol ent

f el ony f or pur poses of t he ACCA. 611 F. 3d 68, 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

2 Car r i gan al so argues t hat hi s December 2000 assaul t wi t h adanger ous weapon convi ct i on shoul d not count under t he ACCA si ncet he Bost on Muni ci pal Cour t had det er mi ned hi s gui l t y pl ea t o be t her esul t of i nef f ect i ve counsel . The same muni ci pal cour t al sor ej ect ed Car r i gan' s r equest t o have hi s pl ea set asi de becauseCar r i gan had not been pr ej udi ced as he woul d be ser vi ng t i me f ort he convi ct i on concur r ent l y wi t h anot her of f ense. We need notdet er mi ne i f t hi s convi ct i on woul d qual i f y Car r i gan as an ACCbecause we f i nd t hat hi s t hr ee ot her vi ol ent f el ony convi ct i onssuf f i ce t he st at ut or y r equi r ement s.

-21-



( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Al menas, 553 F. 3d 27, 34 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( " [ F] or bot h pr udent i al and pr ecedent i al r easons, we have

r ead [ t he ACCA] and t he al most par al l el gui del i ne l anguage at i ssue

[ i n t he gui del i nes def i ni t i on of cri me of vi ol ence] as bei ng i n

par i passu. " ) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d at 41 n. 5

( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes' t er m ' cr i me of

vi ol ence' and ACCA' s t er m ' vi ol ent f el ony' ar e def i ned al most

i dent i cal l y. Accor di ngl y, deci si ons const r ui ng one t er mi nf or mt he

const r uct i on of t he ot her . " ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) ) .

Fur t her mor e, cont r ar y t o what Car r i gan ar gues, t he t wo

met hods of r esi st i ng ar r est pr oscr i bed by Massachuset t s l aw r equi r e

knowl edge. See Mass . Gen Laws ch. 268, § 32B( a) . 3 Bot h met hods

f al l under ei t her t he f or ce cl ause, see i d. § 32B( a) ( 1) , or t he

r esi dual cl ause, see i d. § 32B( a) ( 2) . Al menas, 553 F. 3d at 33, 35.

3 I n per t i nent par t , Mass. Gen Laws ch. 268, § 32B( a) s t at es:

A per son commi t s t he cr i me of r esi st i ng ar r esti f he knowi ngl y pr event s or at t empt s t opr event a pol i ce of f i cer , act i ng under col orof hi s of f i ci al aut hor i t y, f rom ef f ect i ng anar r est of t he act or or anot her , by:

( 1) usi ng or t hr eat eni ng t o use physi calf or ce or vi ol ence agai nst t he pol i ce of f i ceror anot her ; or( 2) usi ng any ot her means whi ch cr eat es asubst ant i al r i sk of causi ng bodi l y i nj ur y t osuch pol i ce of f i cer or anot her .

( emphasi s suppl i ed) .

-22-



Ther ef or e, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed cor r ect l y i n

f i ndi ng t hat Car r i gan' s convi ct i on f or r esi st i ng ar r est coul d be

consi der ed, al ong wi t h hi s convi ct i on f or ar med r obber y, as a cr i me

of vi ol ence f or pur poses of sent enci ng under t he ACCA.

We must now det er mi ne whet her Car r i gan' s convi ct i on f or

assaul t and bat t ery wi t h a deadl y weapon and assaul t and bat t ery of

a pol i ce of f i cer al so count as vi ol ent f el oni es f or pur poses of t he

ACCA.

I n Har t , we hel d t hat assaul t and bat t er y wi t h a deadl y

weapon under Massachuset t s l aw cat egor i cal l y qual i f i es as an ACCA

pr edi cat e under t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause. 674 F. 3d at 41- 44. We

r easoned t hat t he of f ense i n quest i on " cl ear l y poses a ser i ous

pot ent i al r i sk of i nj ur y, compar abl e t o t he degr ee of r i sk posed by

t he enumer at ed of f enses [ of t he r esi dual cl ause] . " I d. at 42. I n

Har t , we al so f ound t hat even i f a convi ct i on f or assaul t and

bat t er y wi t h a danger ous weapon under Massachuset t s l aw may

somet i mes r est on a r eckl essness t heor y, " our anal ysi s under t he

r esi dual c l ause i s expl i c i t l y, and necessar i l y, l i mi t ed t o t he

' or di nar y case. ' " I d. at 43 ( ci t i ng J ames v. Uni t ed St at es, 550

U. S. 192, 208 ( 2007) ) ; see al so i d. at 43 n. 7 ( expl ai ni ng t hat

"[ r ] egar dl ess of t he under l yi ng t heor y, [ assaul t and bat t er y wi t h

a deadl y weapon] r equi r es ' gener al i nt ent t o do t he act causi ng

i nj ur y. ' " ( quot i ng Commonweal t h v. Appl eby, 380 Mass. 296, 308

( 1979) ) ) . Pr i or t o i ssui ng Har t , we had r ul ed t hat assaul t and

-23-



bat t ery wi t h a deadl y weapon under Massachuset t s l aw i s a vi ol ent

f el ony under t he car eer of f ender gui del i nes. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Gl over , 558 F. 3d 71, 79- 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Fi nal l y, Car r i gan ar gues t hat t he ACCA' s r esi dual cl ause

i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. He acknowl edges, however , t hat hi s

ar gument s may be f or ecl osed by t hi s ci r cui t ' s r ul i ngs i n Weeks,

Har t and Uni t ed St at es v. Dancy, 640 F. 3d 455 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . He

does not of f er any new aut hor i t y and he has not r ef ormul at ed t he

vagueness ar gument i n any way t hat woul d pr ompt us t o r evi si t our

pr evi ous r ul i ngs. 4

III. Conclusion

For t he r easons set f or t h above, we af f i r m Car r i gan' s

sent ence.

Affirmed.

4 Car r i gan f i l ed a Fed. R. App. P. 28( j ) l et t er aski ng t hi s cour tt o f i nd t hat hi s sent ence i s unconst i t ut i onal because t he quest i onof hi s s t at us as an ACC shoul d have been submi t t ed t o t he j ur ypur suant t o Uni t ed St at es v. Al l eyne, U. S. , 133 S. Ct . 2151( 2013) . We di sagr ee. I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hatAl mendar ez- Tor r es v. Uni t ed St at es, 523 U. S. 224 ( 1998) , r emai nsgood l aw. See Al l eyne, *10 n. 1. I n Al mendar ez- Tor r es, t he Supr emeCour t f ound t hat , wher e "t he r el evant st at ut or y subj ect mat t er i sr eci di vi sm[ , ] " whi ch "i s as t ypi cal a sent enci ng f act or as onemi ght i magi ne[ , ] " a cr i me i s not bei ng def i ned and, t her ef or e, t hef act of t he pr i or convi ct i on need not be ment i oned i n t hei ndi ct ment nor submi t t ed t o t he j ur y. I d. at 230. Ther ef or e, t hesent ence i mposed on Car r i gan pur suant t o t he ACCA was based on adet er mi nat i on of a sent enci ng f act or , not a det er mi nat i on of anel ement of an of f ense.

-24-

united states v. carrigan, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents