Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

5-26-2006 USA v. Smith Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1774

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Smith" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1037. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1037

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-1774

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEROME SMITH, a/k/a PAUL KELLY, Jerome Smith, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania D.C. No. 03-cr-00683 District Judge: Hon. Timothy J. Savage

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 9, 2006 Before: ROTH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ,* District Judge (Filed: May 26, 2006)

JUDGMENT ORDER

* The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on March 9, 2006, and IT APPEARING that Appellant Jerome Smith challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to search him; and IT APPEARING that Smith is the co-defendant of Kareem Brown, the appellant in United States v. Brown, — F.3d —, Slip Op. No. 05-1723 (3d Cir. May 19, 2006) (Judges Barry, Ambro and Aldisert), in which this Court, per Judge Ambro, vacated Brown’s conviction after determining that police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Brown and that he was seized before any alleged resistance occurred; and IT APPEARING that Smith and Brown were together when apprehended and that the only factual variance between the circumstances surrounding the seizure of Smith and those surrounding the seizure of Brown is that Smith fled from police moments before Brown began allegedly resisting; and IT APPEARING that this distinction is immaterial because Smith had already submitted to a show of police authority by engaging in a brief discussion, putting down his coffee, walking over to the police car and starting to place his hands on the officers’ car, see id at *15-16; see also United States v. Coggins, 986 F.2d 651, 654 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that defendant submitted to a show of authority where he obeyed agent’s command to “sit down,” even though defendant subsequently fled); and UPON CONSIDERATION of all facts and legal contentions, there is no other ground distinguishing this case from Brown, nor meriting further discussion; accordingly, IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court dated July 20, 2004 be and is hereby REVERSED and the conviction is VACATED.

The mandate of this Court shall issue forthwith.

BY THE COURT, /s/ Ruggero J. Aldisert Circuit Judge