U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2023

United States v. Tyquell Alexander

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided August 11, 2023

78 F.4th 346 (Federal Reporter, Fourth Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision. The 6 that cite it most often are listed here.

Romeo v. City of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 2026)
Dockery v. Holmstead (District Court, N.D. Indiana 2025)
Matthews v. Officer Prokopiuk (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2024)
United States v. Anthony Bailey (7th Cir. 2024)
United States v. Anthony Bailey (7th Cir. 2024)
SKILES v. HAMILTON COUNTY (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2023)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2802 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TYQUELL ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 21 CR 190 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JULY 12, 2023 — DECIDED AUGUST 11, 2023 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. ȱĜȱĴȱ¢ȱ¡Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ scene, apprehended and frisked him, and found the gun ȱȱȱ ǯȱ¡ǰȱ ȱ ȱcharged with ȱȱęȱȱȱǰȱŗŞȱǯǯǯȱȗ 922(g)(1), moved ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ cause. The district court denied the motion. Because the 2 No. 22-2802 Ĝȱ ȱ¡ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ suspiciousl¢ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱĜǯȱ Late one night in October 2020, ShotSpotter devices 1 alerted the Chicago Police Department to possible gunshots ȱȱŚŚŖŖȱȱȱȱȱ ¢, on Chicago’s west side. Police officers began ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ȭ mote-controlled surveillance cameras called Police Observa- tion Devices. These camerasǰȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȬ sitioned in high-crime locations, enabled police to watch a large group congregating on that block. The monitoring offic- ers saw ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡ǯȱ¡ȱȱthe gun ¢ȱȱ¡¢ȱȱȱȱȱ it in his front waistband. The officers who saw the hand-off ȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ opposite direction. He then stepped behind a man standing alongside him and moved toward a metal fence that blocked ȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱ. He pushed against the fence but ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ he officers, who hand- cuffed and frisked him. One officer felt an L-shaped object in ¡Ȃȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȬ ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ the police station. ¡ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȬ ȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȱŗŞȱǯǯǯȱȗ 922(g)(1). He moved to ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ noises suggestive of gunshots. “The Chicago Police Department’s Use of ȱ ¢ǰȄȱ THE CITY OF CHICAGO OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, at 4 (Aug. 24, 2021), https://igchicago.org/wp-content/up- loads/2021/08/Chicago-Police-Departments-Use-of-ShotSpotter-Technol- ¢ǯ (archived at https://perma.cc/XG4C-WMKC).

No. 22-2802 3 arguing that the officers’ knowledge that he possessed a gun before their arrival did not establish probable cause that he committed or was committing a crime. The government re- ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ stop was reasonable suspicion—a standard that justified stop- ping and frisking ¡ȱȱȱ ShotSpotter alert, his open possession of a gun, and his evasive actions when the officers arrived. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡Ȃȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¡Ȃȱ£—whether ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱ—and settled upon ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ¡Ȭ ander that he possessed a gun. The judge then determined ȱȱȱ¡ǰȱȱbecause ȱ¡Ȃȱe possession of a gun, but for two other reasons. First, the offic- ers saw that ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ¢ȱǰȱŝŘŖȱILCS 5/24-1(a)(10)(iv), when he carried an unconcealed ȱȱȱȱ ǯȱǰȱ¡Ȭ ander tried to ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ scene after a suspicious handoff just minutes earlier. ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱsee FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(a)(2), preserving his right to appeal the rul- ing on his motion to suppress. The judge sentenced him to ȱ¢ȱȱǯ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ press. As a ¢ȱmatter, it is not obvious at which point ¡ȱ ȱ ǻǯǯǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £ȱ ȱ ǰȱȱǰȱ ȱ¢ȱransported him to the police station) andǰȱ¢ǰ whether the officers’ conduct should ȱ¢£ under a probable cause or reasonable suspicion 4 No. 22-2802 standard. But the government contends that the standard is immaterial because the officers “possessed both probable cause (as the district judge concluded) and reasonable suspi- ȱȱǰȱǰȱȱȄȱ¡ǯȱ the parties and district judge all evaluated whether there was probable ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ frisked him, and probable cause is the more demanding ǰȱ ȱȱ¢£ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ cause.

A warrantless arrest is valid under the Fourth Amend- ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǯȱDistrict of Co- lumbia v. Wesby, 138 ǯȱǯȱśŝŝǰȱśŞŜȱǻŘŖŗŞǼǯ Probable cause ¡Ȭ ists, in turn, when ȱ¢ȱȱ—with the same information ȱ¢ȱȱȱ—would be- lieve there ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ¢. Id. When reviewing the denial of a motion to sup- press, we review the judge’s legal determination of probable cause de novo and the judge’s factual findings for clear error.

Ornelas v. United StatesǰȱśŗŝȱǯǯȱŜşŖǰȱŜşşȱǻŗşşŜǼǲȱUnited States v. Key, 889 ǯřȱşŗŖǰȱşŗŘȱǻŝȱǯȱŘŖŗŞǼǯ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱt ȱȱȱȱ ¢ǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ more important, broader point. Even if—ȱ ¡ȱ Ȭ gues—the officers did not know that he ȱȱ¢ȱȬ tion or lacked a concealed-¢ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ cause to believe that he broke Illinois law, that is, the Illinois ȱȱ¢ȱ. That Act allows a person with ȱȱȱ¢ȱa ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱit is “com- ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ǰȄȱŚřŖȱILCS ŜŜȦśǰȱŜŜȦŗŖǲȱ No. 22-2802 5 see ŝŘŖȱ ȱśȦŘŚ-1(a)(1ŖǼǻǼǰȱȱǰȱȱȱ ȱ¡Ȭ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱǯ In a related challenge to the judge’s probable-cause ruling, ¡ȱȱȱȱȃȱȱȱȄȱȱ the face of the officers’ approach—when he ¢ȱȃȱ ȱ¢ȄȱȱȃȱȱȱȄ—did not give the of- ficers reason to believe that his gun possession was unlawful.

True, such behavior alone seems unremarkable for purposes of probable cause. See United States v. Williamsǰȱŝřŗ ǯřȱŜŝŞ, ŜŞŝȱǻŝȱǯȱŘŖŗřǼȱǻ“Mȱǰȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȬ ȱǰȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱǰȱȱ ¢ȱǰȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱ area … .Ȅ). ȱ¡Ȃȱȱȱagain too narrow—his be- havior ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ point among the ¢ȱȱȱthat could establish probable cause. In United States v. RichmondǰȱşŘŚȱǯřȱŚŖŚȱǻŝȱ Cir. 2019)ǰȱȱ¢ȱȱǰ we concluded that offic- ers had reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed a crime based on ȱȃȱȄȱȱȱ shirt pocket, his ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃǳȄȱ ȱ their approach, and his placement of an unidentifiable object on the threshold of his front door. Id. at 408-09. A similar set of circumstances was present here: ¢ȱȱof- ficers could infer ȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱ he possessed a gun (which is undisputed), and his furtive movements upon their approach. See also United States v. Adair, 925 F.3d 931, 934, 938 ǻŝȱǯȱŘŖŗşǼ (officers had rea- sonable suspicion in part because defendant tried to evade of- ȱ¢ȱ ȱȱ Ǽǯ For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district judge’s denial of Al¡Ȃȱȱȱȱǯ

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.