Stop-and-Frisk Violation by the LAPD in Getting Key

One week after a robbery of a Sprint store in Los Angeles, LAPD officers observed a group of individuals congregating at the Nickerson Gardens housing complex, a low-income, gang-infested area of 1,066 apartments that resembles military housing located just north of the 105 Freeway in what in regarded as Watts.

Terrance Douglas Baker stood among them in front of the complex.  According to one of the LAPD officers, they knew Mr. Baker was a gang member and that he did not reside at Nickerson Gardens.  Officer Byun suspected that Mr. Baker was trespassing.

Based on this suspicion of trespassing, officers approached Baker and as they did so, Mr. Baker lifted his shirt to reassure the officers that he was unarmed.  Officers nonetheless did a pat down search of him and found no weapons or contraband.  Such a limited search is permitted for officer safety under Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 30.

Officer Byun, however, observed a car key attached to Mr. Baker’s belt loop and told Mr. Baker to hand over the key.  Mr. Baker did so.  Officers asked Mr. Baker if he had driven a car to the location.  Mr. Baker responded, “I don’t have a car.”

Officer Byun then walked away with the car and pushed the electronic remote entry button on the key, finding a car that the key was associated with.  The cars headlights flashed in response to Officer Byun pushing the car key button.

Officers then went to the car and just as they were about to enter the car, Mr. Baker ran away.  Officers gave chase and in the process, Officer Byun dropped the key and it became lost.

After officers caught Mr. Baker, they returned their attention to the car, but lacked the key to open the car.  They then pried open the car door, causing the car alarm to sound, and searched the car, finding a handgun.

Further investigation of the handgun revealed that it was the same weapon used in the Sprint store robbery and an employee of the Sprint store then identified Mr. Baker as one of the robbers.

Mr. Baker then was charged in U.S. District Court of a Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit a robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and brandishing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

Before trial, Mr. Baker filed a motion to suppress evidence of the gun and the judge, Percy Anderson, denied the motion.  Mr. Baker argued that officers exceeded the scope of their stop and frisk search by taking the car key and searching the car.

The case then went to trial and the jury found Mr. Baker guilty of the three counts arising from the Sprint store robbery.  Mr. Baker was then sentenced to 125 months in federal prison on each of the Hobbs Act counts, to be served concurrently, plus 84 months for the brandishing a firearm count. 

Mr. Baker then appealed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena in United States v. Terrance Douglas Baker.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, agreeing with Mr. Baker that the officers exceeded the legal scope of a stop-and-frisk search by taking the car key on Mr. Baker’s belt-loop and continuing their search of the car he drove to Nickerson Gardens.

The Ninth Circuit explained that, given the suspicion of Mr. Baker trespassing, the officers violated Mr. Baker’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant by seizing the car key. 

The officers then could have applied for and received a search warrant to search the car, but they proceeded to break open the car, allegedly because one officer said he could see the butt of a handgun under the driver’s seat. 

The Ninth Circuit explained that a warrant was required because Mr. Baker had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the car associated with the car key.  United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113.  In addition, such a search of the car far exceeded the scope of a Terry v. Ohio search.

The case was then remanded with orders to reverse the brandishing a firearm conviction and instructions to exclude the handgun, but the Ninth Circuit otherwise affirmed the convictions for the Hobbs Act robbery.

For more information about Terry v. Ohio “Stop-and-Frisk” issues, please click on the following articles: