Carter v. United States

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-CF-0388

DONTE J. CARTER, APPELLANT,

V.

UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.

Appeal from the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia

(2020-CF2-007280)

(Hon. Lynn Leibovitz, Trial Judge)

(Submitted April 18, 2024 Decided August 28, 2025)

Brian D. Shefferman was on the brief for appellant.

Chrisellen R. Kolb, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Matthew M.

Graves, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and John P.

Mannarino, Benjamin Helfand, Jacqueline Yarbro, and Michael C. Lee, Assistant

United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BECKWITH and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, *

Senior Judge.

Opinion for the court by Senior Judge WASHINGTON.

*

Senior Judge Fisher was originally assigned to this case. Following his

retirement on August 22, 2024, Judge Fisher was replaced by Senior Judge

Washington.

2

Concurring opinion by Associate Judge MCLEESE at page 31.

WASHINGTON, Senior Judge: Appellant Donte Carter was conversing amongst

a group of ten Black men on a sunlit sidewalk in Ward Four of the District. Despite

not having raised any suspicion of engaging in criminal activity, the group was

approached by four members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun

Recovery Unit (GRU). One of the officers approached Mr. Carter from behind and

asked whether he was carrying a firearm. Mr. Carter replied that he was not and

twice lifted his shirt to demonstrate that nothing was hidden underneath. The officer

then asked Mr. Carter to “hike” his pants up. In this appeal, we are asked to

determine whether Mr. Carter was seized at this moment within the meaning of the

Fourth Amendment. We hold that he was.

I. Background

Our articulation of the facts is based on both the trial court’s extensive factual

findings and footage from body-cameras worn by the officers. Neither party

disputes these facts.

At some time between 3:00 and 4:00 pm on a sunny day in September 2020,

five officers of the GRU 1 drove two unmarked vehicles into Ward Four of the

1

The unit has since been renamed to the Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT).

3

District, an area that consists predominantly of Black Americans, 2 to conduct a

firearm interdiction. They went there because of “an uptick in shootings and sounds

of gunfire” in the area. The officers observed ten Black men conversing on a

sidewalk and parked along the road opposite them. The group was split between

three men “sitting and standing near some planters,” and another seven men about

fifteen feet away. Among the group of seven men was appellant Mr. Carter, leaned

up against a parked car and facing everyone else.

Four officers, Officers Sanders, Guzman, DelBorrell, and Keleman, emerged

from the vehicles and approached the group. They wore tactical vests with “police”

written on the back as well as visible handcuffs, firearms, and other police

equipment. Officers Sanders and Guzman focused on the group of three and

announced that they were “checking for firearms.” Almost immediately, and

without being prompted to, one of the men lifted his shirt to reveal his waistband

seemingly to demonstrate that nothing was hidden underneath. Upon checking the

2

Ward Four consists of approximately 44 percent Black Americans and 29

percent White Americans. 2020 Consensus Information & Data: Table 3, D.C.

Office of Plan., https://planning.dc.gov/publication/2020-census-information-and-

data; https://perma.cc/B6QF-C8YQ.

4

man’s waistband and a small bag he was carrying, Officers Sanders and Guzman

continued toward the larger group.

Meanwhile, Officers DelBorrell and Keleman focused on Mr. Carter’s group.

Officer Keleman approached two individuals standing a few feet to Mr. Carter’s left

while Officer DelBorrell looped around the vehicle Mr. Carter was leaning on to

approach him from behind. As Officer DelBorrell rounded the vehicle, another man

approximately a foot ahead of Mr. Carter and several feet ahead of the officer also

lifted his shirt to reveal his waistband. Within three to four feet of Mr. Carter, Officer

DelBorrell asked how he was “doing,” to which Mr. Carter briefly replied, “how are

you doing” or “what’s up” before turning away. Officer DelBorrell then moved

closer to Mr. Carter but before he could say anything else, Mr. Carter also lifted his

shirt to show his waistband and then lowered it. As Mr. Carter raised his shirt,

DelBorrell asked, “[h]ey [c]hamp, you not got nothing on you?” Mr. Carter

responded, “no” and lifted his shirt again. Unsatisfied, Officer DelBorrell requested,

“[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quick?” Mr. Carter complied. “[I]n a

single quick motion, [Mr. Carter] hiked his pants [up] by holding them at the

waistband with two hands.” He “then lifted his shirt [again] and put it back down.”

While this was happening, Officer Guzman had begun to approach Mr. Carter

from the other group. When he was about six to ten feet away, he noticed a bulge in

5

Mr. Carter’s groin area. When Mr. Carter raised his pants in response to Officer

DelBorrell’s question, Officer Guzman, from approximately three to five feet away,

saw that the bulge was an L-shape, which he believed to be a firearm. Officer

Guzman then instructed Mr. Carter to “[s]tand up . . . one more time.” Mr. Carter

stood. Guzman then remarked, “[r]ight there, brother, right there,” pointing to Mr.

Carter’s right groin area. Mr. Carter replied, “[t]his is my phone,” pulling a phone

from his right pocket. Officer Guzman subsequently frisked Mr. Carter and after a

brief struggle in which the other officers on the scene joined, the officers recovered

a firearm hidden in Mr. Carter’s pants.

Based on this encounter, Mr. Carter was charged with eight offenses

connected to the firearm. He moved to suppress the firearm as well as a statement

he made following the incident on grounds that they were the result of an

unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied

his motion. It rejected his argument that he was seized when Officer DelBorrell

asked him to raise his pants and held that Mr. Carter was seized only after he pulled

his pants up. The court held that by then, the officers had reasonable suspicion to

seize him based on Officer Guzman’s observation of an L-shaped bulge in his groin

area that he made only after Mr. Carter raised his pants. Accordingly, the court held

that the firearm and statement were not the product of an unreasonable seizure.

6

Mr. Carter was subsequently convicted on all eight counts following a trial on

stipulated facts. He timely appealed.

II. Analysis

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against

unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Under the Fourth

Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, law enforcement officers

may not seize an individual unless they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause

to believe that the person is engaged in criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392

U.S. 1, 27 (1968); Robinson v. United States, 76 A.3d 329, 335 (D.C. 2013).

Mr. Carter’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erroneously denied his

motion to suppress. Contrary to the court’s holding, he argues that the officers seized

him within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when Officer DelBorrell

requested that he raise his pants. Because, according to Mr. Carter, the officers

lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause, such conduct violated his Fourth

Amendment rights. Mr. Carter claims that the trial court therefore should have

suppressed the fruits of that seizure—the firearm and his subsequent statement. See

Smith v. United States, 283 A.3d 88, 98 (D.C. 2022) (explaining that a court must

generally suppress any evidence “obtained as a direct result of” or “found to be a

7

derivative of” an illegal search or seizure (quoting Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 237

(2016))).

For its part, the government admits that it lacked reasonable suspicion or

probable cause to seize Mr. Carter when Officer DelBorrell asked him to raise his

pants. It also concedes that if it did seize Mr. Carter at that moment, the firearm and

statement were products of an unreasonable seizure and should have been

suppressed. The government’s sole argument on appeal is that it did not seize Mr.

Carter until after Officer DelBorrell’s request that Mr. Carter “hike” his pants up,

when it did have reasonable suspicion to seize him. Mr. Carter does not deny that

the officers had reasonable suspicion after Officer DelBorrell’s question and simply

argues that the seizure began before then.

Accordingly, the central question before us is whether Mr. Carter was seized

when Officer DelBorrell requested that he raise his pants. We review this question

de novo. Sharp v. United States, 132 A.3d 161, 166 (D.C. 2016) (holding that

whether a defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is a

question of law, which we review de novo).

To determine whether a defendant was seized within the meaning of the

Fourth Amendment, we ask whether in view of all the circumstances surrounding

the defendant’s encounter with law enforcement, an objective and reasonable person

8

in the defendant’s shoes would have “felt free to terminate” the interaction and “go

about [their] business.” Jones v. United States, 154 A.3d 591, 592 (D.C. 2017); see

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989) (explaining that the test for

reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is an “objective one”).

“Circumstances that might signify a seizure include the ‘presence of several officers,

the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the [defendant], or

the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer[s’]

request[s] might [have been] compelled.’” T.W. v. United States, 292 A.3d 790, 795

(D.C. 2023) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)). To

that list, we have added factors such as whether (1) the officers asked the defendant

questions of such an accusatory nature that an objective and reasonable person in the

defendant’s position would have felt “apprehensive” in failing to reply, see Jones,

154 A.3d at 596; (2) the officers continued to press the defendant with such

questions “in the face of an initial denial,” signaling that they “‘refused to accept’

the answer given,” T.W., 292 A.3d at 795 (quoting Golden v. United States, 248 A.3d

925, 938 (D.C. 2021)); (3) the encounter took place at night or the defendant was

alone or secluded, see Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933, 944 (D.C. 2019); and

(4) “the officers . . . blocked the [defendant’s] potential exit paths or ‘means of

egress’” so as to signal that the defendant was not free to leave, T.W., 292 A.3d at

795 (quoting Golden, 248 A.3d at 939). In addition, we also consider the defendant’s

9

race and the role that it may have played in affecting their willingness to leave. See

Dozier, 220 A.3d at 944.

A.

At the outset, we acknowledge that this is a close case. Whereas several

aspects of Mr. Carter’s interaction with the officers strongly suggest that he was

seized, there are other features that sway us in the opposite direction.

Beginning with the case that favors Mr. Carter, we recognize that this case is

not too dissimilar from Golden, in which we held that the defendant was seized. See

generally Golden, 248 A.3d 925. In that case, the defendant, Brandon Golden, was

walking alone along a sidewalk at night when four GRU officers in a pair of

unmarked SUVs approached him from behind. Id. at 931. One of the SUVs stopped

at a curb in front of Mr. Golden and the other parked several feet to the left. Id.

With his window rolled down and his police badge, tactical vest, and firearm clearly

visible, an officer in the first car, Officer Vaillancourt, asked Mr. Golden, “in a

conversational tone . . . whether he had any weapons on him.” Id. at 932. Mr.

Golden replied that he did not. Id. Officer Vaillancourt then asked, “[c]an you just

show me your waistband[?]” Id. (second alteration in original). Mr. Golden

complied by pulling up the middle and left sides of his shirt but not the right. Id.

Suspecting that Mr. Golden was attempting to conceal something underneath the

10

right part of his shirt, Officer Vaillancourt continued to probe Mr. Golden about what

he was hiding. Id. Eventually, Officer Vaillancourt exited the vehicle, frisked Mr.

Golden, and discovered a firearm. Id. Mr. Golden was subsequently charged with

various firearm-related offenses and sought to suppress the firearm on grounds that

the officers seized him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and that the

firearm was a product of this unreasonable seizure. Id. at 931, 933. The trial court

denied his motion and Mr. Golden was convicted. Id. at 933.

On appeal, we vacated Mr. Golden’s conviction and remanded. Id. at 949.

We held that the officers in the SUVs seized Mr. Golden the moment Officer

Vaillancourt requested to see his waistband. Id. at 936. Because the officers lacked

reasonable suspicion or probable cause at that point, the seizure was unreasonable.

Id. at 940. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to suppress the firearm. Id.

We arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Golden was seized by first recognizing

that Mr. Golden’s encounter with the officers was not merely one between “equals,”

which an objective and reasonable person would feel free to terminate, but rather

“commenced with an impressive show of police authority.” Id. at 936 (quoting

Jones, 154 A.3d at 595). We observed that “[n]ot one but four police officers in two

unmarked vehicles simultaneously converged on and partially surrounded [Mr.

11

Golden], with one of the vehicles blocking his path by stopping directly in front of

him[—]a visible signal that the police intended for him to stop.” Id.

Second, we held that Officer Vaillancourt’s immediate questioning of Mr.

Golden as to whether he was carrying any weapons was of such an accusatory nature

that it could not be viewed as merely “a simple request for information.” Id. at 937;

cf. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) (holding that an officer does not

seize someone merely by approaching them and “ask[ing] a few questions”). Rather,

it indicated to Mr. Golden that he had been “singled . . . out” because the police

“suspected him of being armed and committing a crime,” thereby contributing to a

“sense of powerlessness in an investigative confrontation by the police,” one which

he could relieve himself of only by demonstrating his innocence. Golden, 248 A.3d

at 937 (second alteration in original).

Finally, we explained that Officer Vaillancourt’s request that Mr. Golden

reveal his waistband after Mr. Golden denied carrying a weapon took the interaction

“beyond mere questioning,” because it “implied” to Mr. Golden that the officers

would continue to view him with “heightened suspicion if he attempted to end the

encounter without first exposing his waist[band].” Id. We held that an objective

and reasonable person in Mr. Golden’s shoes “would not [have felt] free to frustrate

12

the police inquiry” without first complying with Officer Vaillancourt’s request in

order to “allay [his] suspicions” and “get the confrontation over with.” Id.

Here, Mr. Carter’s interaction with the officers bore many of the same features

that contributed to our finding that Mr. Golden was seized. First, like in Golden,

two police vehicles simultaneously approached Mr. Carter and others in his group.

Four officers then exited the vehicles and converged on the group, suggesting that

the men were not simply free to continue conversing amongst themselves as they

were previously. Officer DelBorrell also approached Mr. Carter from behind,

which—in our view—would make any objective and reasonable person feel uneasy

and intimidated, especially when faced with an openly visible firearm within close

proximity.

Second, like Officer Vaillancourt, Officer DelBorrell immediately asked Mr.

Carter whether he possessed a firearm. As we did in Golden, we view this question

as one that suggested to Mr. Carter that he, alongside other members of the group,

had been singled out as being suspected of criminal activity. An objective and

reasonable person in his shoes would have felt apprehensive in refusing to respond

to the officer’s question. See, e.g., Mayo v. United States, 315 A.3d 606, 628-29

(D.C. 2024) (en banc) (explaining that such a question is intimidating in part due to

the “illegal[ity] [of] carry[ing] a gun in the District without proper licensure and

13

registration”); T.W., 292 A.3d at 796-97 (explaining the coercive nature of a request

for a weapon). They may have felt fearful that refusing to answer such a question

would have suggested to “the suspicious officer[]” that they had “something to

hide.” Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348, 1360 (D.C. 1991).

Finally, despite Mr. Carter both denying carrying a firearm and raising his

shirt not once but twice to reveal his waistband, Officer DelBorrell continued to

probe him by asking him to “hik[e] [his] pants up.” We see no appreciable difference

between this request and that in Golden as both required the defendants to continue

assuaging the officers’ suspicions despite initially denying any wrongdoing. Indeed,

both requests implied to the defendants that they would continue to be suspected of

criminal activity until the officers stopped asking questions, thereby leaving them

with little choice but to respond. See T.W., 292 A.3d at 798 (seeing no meaningful

difference between the officer’s offer to pat down the defendant and Officer

Vaillancourt’s request to view Mr. Golden’s waistband because both questions were

asked after the defendants denied carrying a weapon).

While we recognize the similarities between this case and Golden, we also

acknowledge two key differences that prevent us from holding that Golden controls

the outcome here. Most notably, in Golden, we placed significant weight on the fact

that Mr. Golden was approached at night by four officers in a secluded setting where

14

there were no bystanders to witness the interaction. See Golden, 248 A.3d at 936-37.

This not only resulted in a more intimidating atmosphere, but it also heightened Mr.

Golden’s concern that he was being singled out for criminal activity and would need

to comply to dispel that suspicion. Id. at 937. Here, in contrast, Mr. Carter was not

singled out on his own but rather as a member of a larger group. This likely

mitigated Mr. Carter’s concern that he alone was being targeted by the police.

Further, Mr. Carter was not outnumbered by four officers in a secluded setting at

night. Less intimidating, the interaction took place in broad daylight with nine

potential witnesses, all occupying the attention of just four officers.

Second, whereas the officers in Golden exerted significant control over Mr.

Golden’s movement by partially surrounding him, thereby signaling that he was not

free to leave, the officers here did not restrict Mr. Carter’s movement. Rather, as the

trial court found in its suppression ruling, Mr. Carter “was not surrounded or

hemmed in by the police” and was “more surrounded by those he had been hanging

out with.” Indeed, unlike in Golden, any restriction on Mr. Carter’s movement was,

at least in part, self-imposed, namely by his decision to lean against a car in the

company of others. 3 See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 218 (1984) (holding that

3

We are unpersuaded by the government’s additional attempts to distinguish

Golden. Namely, the government argues that Officer DelBorrell’s conduct toward

Mr. Carter was less “intimidating” than Officer Vaillancourt’s actions toward Mr.

Golden. It points to Officer DelBorrell’s casual tone, the fact that Mr. Carter did not

15

seem to be bothered, and that Officer Vaillancourt requested that Mr. Golden

“acquiesce in a public unveiling of part of his body” whereas Officer DelBorrell

merely asked Mr. Carter to raise his pants.

We disagree with the government that Officer DelBorrell was less

intimidating than Officer Vaillancourt. To begin, as we recognized in Golden,

Officer Vaillancourt’s tone was also “conversational.” Id. at 932. Despite that, we

held that his questions were still intimidating due to their accusatory nature. Id. at

937. Indeed, we have previously discouraged courts from “attach[ing] undue weight

to a police officer’s ‘conversational’ tone in speaking to a suspect.” T.W., 292 A.3d

at 803 (quoting Golden, 248 A.3d at 935 n.26). “While a harsh and commanding

tone could certainly convey to a person that their compliance is non-optional, a polite

and conversational tone does little to dispel coercion that arises from the content of

officers’ inquiries, or in how they have approached the suspect.” Id. at 803; see also

Guadalupe, 585 A.2d at 1361 (explaining that police questioning does “not have to

assume an intensity marking a shift from polite conversation to harsh words to create

an intimidating atmosphere”). This is especially true when the officer’s inquiries

are accusatory in nature, as they were here.

Second, we disagree with the government’s characterization of Mr. Carter as

being “[un]bothered.” Almost immediately after Officer DelBorrell began

questioning him, Mr. Carter raised his shirt up twice. If he were unbothered, we

think it far more likely that he would ignore the officer’s questions or at minimum

verbally deny possessing a firearm, let alone take the more drastic step of revealing

his waistband. In any case, we place little weight on Mr. Carter’s subjective response

to Officer DelBorrell’s conduct as the Fourth Amendment seizure inquiry is an

objective one—that is, whether an objective and reasonable person in Mr. Carter’s

shoes would feel free to terminate the encounter. See Jackson v. United States, 805

A.2d 979, 987 (D.C. 2002).

Finally, that Officer DelBorrell requested that Mr. Carter raise his pants

whereas Officer Vaillancourt asked Mr. Golden to reveal his waistband is not legally

significant for present purposes. Setting aside the fact that Mr. Carter had already

raised his shirt twice before Officer DelBorrell called on him to raise his pants, our

main point here in Golden was not that Mr. Golden was subject to a highly intrusive

inquiry (though he was), it was that the officer indicated to him that he would not be

free to leave until he fully satisfied the officer that he did not possess any weapons.

See Golden, 248 A.3d at 937. Similarly here, by failing to take “‘no’ for an answer,”

16

workers in a factory were not seized despite officers being stationed at the factory

doors because the workers had already voluntarily limited their movement to the

factory floor before the officers arrived).

B.

In addition to the differences between Golden and this case, we previously

concluded in two cases—Brown and Kelly—that defendants in circumstances also

not too dissimilar to those here were not seized within the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment. See generally Brown v. United States, 983 A.2d 1023 (D.C. 2009);

Kelly v. United States, 580 A.2d 1282 (D.C. 1990). In Brown, two officers

approached a group of “five or six [people] standing on [a] sidewalk.” 983 A.2d at

1024-25. One of the officers approached the defendant, Valerie Brown, and asked

if she had “any guns, drugs, or narcotics on [her].” Id. at 1025. Ms. Brown replied

that she was “not doing anything” and that she was just “counting [her] money.” Id.

The officer repeated her question and Ms. Brown “reached into her purse and handed

the officer a brown pill bottle,” which later tested positive for cocaine. Id.

We held that Ms. Brown was not seized despite the fact that the officer asked

the same accusatory question twice. Id. at 1026. We relied on the fact that the

Officer DelBorrell gave Mr. Carter the impression that he would have to respond to

all his questions before being let go. Id. (alterations in original).

17

officers were outnumbered by the group Ms. Brown was a part of, the fact that she

was approached by only one officer while the other was further away speaking to

two other individuals, that the officers did not engage in behavior, “such as

threatening gestures, orders, or intimidation, which might have caused the encounter

to lose its consensual nature,” and that other members of the group walked away

unimpeded, suggesting that an objective and reasonable person in Ms. Brown’s

shoes would have felt free to leave. Id. at 1025-26. That the officer asked an

accusatory question and that she repeated her question were insufficient to overcome

the non-coercive nature of the other aspects of the interaction. See id.

In Kelly, two officers approached the defendant, James Kelly, at Union

Station. Kelly, 580 A.2d at 1284. Both officers were in plain clothes and neither

was visibly carrying a firearm or displaying their badge. Id. One of the officers

asked Mr. Kelly if he “could speak with him” and Mr. Kelly replied, “yes.” Id.

Meanwhile, the other officer stood “about four feet in front of Kelly.” Id. The

questioning officer inquired about where Mr. Kelly was arriving from, where he

lived, and how long he had lived there. Id. The officer then introduced himself as a

member of the Narcotics Branch of the police department and asked if Mr. Kelly

was “carrying any drugs.” Id. Mr. Kelly replied, “no.” Id. The officer then asked

to search Mr. Kelly’s bag, which Mr. Kelly permitted. Id.

18

Like in Brown, we held that Mr. Kelly was not seized despite being repeatedly

asked an accusatory question. Id. at 1288. We explained that the officer “made no

demands” of Mr. Kelly, never produced a weapon, and never touched Mr. Kelly. Id.

at 1286. Further, we rejected Mr. Kelly’s argument that the non-questioning officer

was impeding his movement as the officer was four feet away, did not brandish a

weapon, or make any threatening gestures. Id. Finally, we emphasized that the

questioning officer asked Mr. Kelly if he could speak with him, thereby implying to

Mr. Kelly that he did not have to comply. Id.

Brown and Kelly suggest that we should similarly overlook the fact that Mr.

Carter was repeatedly asked accusatory questions as the other aspects of the

encounter were just as non-coercive as in those two cases. Like in Brown, Mr.

Carter’s group far outnumbered the officers who approached them. In fact, the

number of non-officers to officers was approximately the same in both cases (five

to two). Further, like in Brown, Mr. Carter was initially approached by one officer,

Officer DelBorrell, while the others focused elsewhere. Indeed, at the time Officer

DelBorrell requested that Mr. Carter raise his pants, Officer DelBorrell was the only

officer in Mr. Carter’s immediate vicinity. Officer Guzman, the next closest officer,

was still several feet away. Finally, like in Brown and Kelly, the officers here did not

make any threatening gestures or orders, nor did they touch Mr. Carter, so as to

suggest that compliance was mandatory.

19

The government goes so far as to argue that considering the similarities,

Brown and Kelly control the outcome in this case. While we certainly place

analytical weight on both cases, we reject the government’s claim that they are

controlling. Brown is distinguishable for two reasons. First, unlike in Brown, no

member of Mr. Carter’s group left once the police arrived. To the contrary, not only

did members of the group comply with the officers’ requests, but some went further

by raising their shirts before they were even asked. Accordingly, unlike in Brown,

the behavior of others surrounding Mr. Carter suggest that an objective and

reasonable person in his shoes would not have felt free to leave. Second, what made

the repetitive questioning less coercive in Brown was that Ms. Brown’s first answer

was non-responsive to the officer’s question. The officer asked whether she was

carrying any contraband, and rather than replying “yes” or “no,” Ms. Brown

answered that she was simply counting her money. Brown, 983 A.2d at 1025. Thus,

it was “entirely reasonable for the officer to ask her question again.” Gordon v.

United States, 120 A.3d 73, 82 (D.C. 2015) (differentiating Brown on grounds that

the repetitive questioning in Brown was simply to seek clarification to a non-

responsive initial answer); T.W., 292 A.3d at 801 (same). Here, in contrast, Mr.

Carter explicitly denied carrying a weapon and raised his shirt twice when Officer

DelBorrell questioned him. In the face of this denial, unlike in Brown, Officer

DelBorrell implied that he was unsatisfied by asking Mr. Carter to raise his pants.

20

Kelly is also distinguishable. Namely, the officer there requested Mr. Kelly’s

permission to speak with him before questioning him, thereby indicating that

cooperation was only optional. Kelly, 580 A.2d at 1284. An acknowledgement that

an individual need not comply significantly reduces the coercive nature of a police

encounter as it dispels doubt in an individual’s mind that they must cooperate to

terminate the interaction. Whereas the officer in Kelly effectively informed Mr.

Kelly of his right to walk away by asking him if he could speak, the officers did not

do so here. Officer DelBorrell simply approached Mr. Carter from behind and began

asking if he was carrying any weapons.

* * *

In light of the similarities between this case and those in which we both found

that the defendant was seized (Golden), and not seized (Brown and Kelly), we must

look beyond the mere conduct of the officers to objectively determine whether Mr.

Carter was seized. To do so, we examine the impact of the defendant’s race. Dozier,

220 A.3d at 944. Indeed, in its suppression ruling, the trial court implicitly

recognized the relevance of race to its Fourth Amendment seizure inquiry. It

acknowledged that “in certain neighborhoods among certain demographics that are

highly policed[,] the behavior of police can convey to a reasonable . . . person that

they are compelled to allay [the] officers’ suspicion by acceding to their wishes.”

21

The court went no further, however, and instead focused its analysis solely on the

coercive nature of the officers’ conduct. It did not delve further into how the

officers’ conduct might have uniquely impacted an objective and reasonable person

sharing Mr. Carter’s racial status as a Black man. Accordingly, in this next part, we

conduct a more thorough inquiry.

C.

Dozier requires that in addition to considering the coercive nature of the

officers’ conduct in a Fourth Amendment seizure analysis, we must also take into

account the defendant’s race. Id. More specifically, we are to consider whether an

objective and reasonable person sharing the defendant’s generalized lived

experiences arising out of their racial status would have felt free to terminate the

police encounter. See id. at 944-45. Our consideration of the defendant’s race

recognizes that a Fourth Amendment seizure inquiry would be incomplete, and

indeed, incongruent with the objective reality that people of color face during

interactions with law enforcement. Id. For people of color, and as relevant here,

Black men, feel “especially apprehensive” around the police such that conduct that

22

may not rise to the level of a seizure without consideration of race, may do so once

the defendant’s race and lived experiences are accounted for. Id. at 944. 4

To inform our analysis as to the role that Mr. Carter’s status as a Black man

may have played here, it is first important to understand why Black men, generally

speaking, are especially cautious around and more likely to comply with the

demands of law enforcement. There are two central reasons. First, “[i]t is no secret”

that Black Americans are disproportionately likely to be victims of violence at the

hands of police officers, particularly during suspicionless investigatory inquiries like

the one here. Bloom, supra at note 4, at 7 (quoting Strieff, 579 U.S. at 254 (2016)

(Sotomayor, J., dissenting)). In recent years, nationally, police officers have

threatened or used non-fatal force in roughly three percent of encounters they

initiated or which resulted from a traffic accident. Nazgol Ghandnoosh & Celeste

Barry, One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing 9 (2023),

For a more thorough discussion as to why considering the defendant’s race

4

is consistent with the objective nature of the Fourth Amendment seizure inquiry, see,

e.g., Daniel S. Harawa, Coloring in the Fourth Amendment, 137 Harv. L. Rev. 1533

(2024); Aliza H. Bloom, Objective Enough: Race is Relevant to the Reasonable

Person in Criminal Procedure, 19 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1 (2023); Lindsey Webb,

Legal Consciousness as Race Consciousness: Expansion of the Fourth Amendment

Seizure Analysis Through Objective Knowledge of Police Impunity, 48 Seton Hall

L. Rev. 403 (2018); Devon W. Carbado, (E)Racing the Fourth Amendment, 100

Mich. L. Rev. 946 (2002); Tracey Maclin, “Black and Blue Encounters”—Some

Preliminary Thoughts About Fourth Amendment Seizures: Should Race Matter, 26

Val. U. L. Rev. 243 (1991).

23

https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2023/11/One-in-Five-Disparities-

in-Crime-and-Policing.pdf; https://perma.cc/J367-HYVL. During these

interactions, Black individuals were over twice as likely to be subject to force or

threatened force as White individuals. Id. And with regard to fatal force, Black

Americans were over twice as likely to be shot and killed by police officers as White

Americans. Id. Twenty-one percent of Black adults have reported being victims of

police violence on account of their race (compared to three percent of white adults)

and nearly half have stated that they were at some point fearful for their life around

law enforcement (compared to sixteen percent of white adults). Craig Palosky, Poll:

7 in 10 Black Americans Say They Have Experienced Incidents of Discrimination or

Police Mistreatment in their Lifetime, Including Nearly Half Who Felt Their Lives

Were in Danger, KFF (June 18, 2020), https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-

health-policy/press-release/poll-7-in-10-black-americans-say-they-have-

experienced-incidents-of-discrimination-or-police-mistreatment-in-lifetime-

including-nearly-half-who-felt-lives-were-in-danger/; https://perma.cc/RR22-

LDNJ.

Naturally, this statistical reality has led to the perception among Black

Americans, and Black men in particular, that they are unsafe around law

enforcement and that they must engage in “particular kinds of performances” around

the police to “preempt” and mitigate the risks of “law enforcement discipline.”

24

Carbado, supra at note 4, at 966. Indeed, the inundation of countless stories of young

and unarmed Black men being killed by police for their failure to comply and

generations-worth of experience in dealing with the police within the Black

community have led Black parents to give their children “‘the talk’—instructing

them to never run down the street; always keep [their] hands where they can be seen;

[and to never] even think of talking back to . . . stranger[s]—all out of fear of how

an officer with a gun will react to them.” Strieff, 579 U.S. at 254 (Sotomayor, J.,

dissenting); see Rod K. Brunson, “Police Don’t Like Black People”: African-

American Young Men’s Accumulated Police Experiences, 6 Crim. & Pub. Pol’y 71,

88 (2007) (finding that “violence at the hands of the police . . . happened enough to

convince [Black youth] that it was a real possibility during any encounter with police

officers”); Rayan Succar et al., Understanding the Role of Media in the Formation

of Public Sentiment Towards the Police, Commc’ns Psych (2024) (describing the

influential role of individual media stories of police brutality on perceptions about

the police). Having been raised in this environment, and “being more vulnerable to

police violence” than other demographic groups, Black men are more likely to

comply with police demands rather than exercise their constitutional right to

terminate a suspicionless police encounter. Dozier, 220 A.3d at 945.

Second, even setting aside the risk of provoking violence, Black Americans

are especially distrustful of law enforcement and are thus less likely to terminate a

25

police encounter due to skepticism that any attempt to exercise their constitutional

rights will be respected. From slave patrols during the antebellum era to Black

Codes post-Reconstruction to disparate charging and sentencing practices today, the

criminal legal system has historically been used as a tool to undermine rather than

uphold the freedom and dignity of Black Americans. See Daniel S. Harawa,

Whitewashing the Fourth Amendment, 111 Geo. L.J. 923, 940 (2023); see generally

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (2010). Modern-day policing reflects this

history with Black communities disproportionately subject to adverse police

interactions. See Radley Balko, There’s Overwhelming Evidence that the Criminal

Justice System is Racist: Here’s the Proof, Wash. Post (June 10, 2020),

https://perma.cc/ND2K-SUGV (cataloging studies of racial bias in the criminal

justice system, including 46 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating racial bias in

policing and profiling over the prior five years). Black Americans are more likely

to be subject to suspicionless stops and are more likely to be searched and detained

during these stops. Bloom, supra at note 4, at 7, 13 (citing U.S. Dep’t Justice,

Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 4 (2015),

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-

releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf;

https://perma.cc/ZBT9-7BJP (concluding that Black drivers were “more than twice

as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling

26

for non-race variables”)). Black men in particular also tend to be questioned more

accusatorily and aggressively—a product of both historical tension between law

enforcement and the Black community and, as social science research suggests,

stereotyping of Black men as being dangerous and criminally predisposed. Carbado,

supra at note 4, at 982; Graham Cronogue, Race and the Fourth Amendment: Why

the Reasonable Person Analysis Should Include Race as a Factor, 20 Tex. J. C.L &

C.R. 61 (2015). That is, whereas a police officer’s objective in questioning a White

individual will be to simply “check things out,” they will often “need more time with

and more information from the” Black individual given their perception that the

Black individual is more likely to engage in criminal activity. Carbado, supra at

note 4, at 982.

It should therefore come as “no surprise” that Black Americans “often

perceive their interactions with law enforcement differently than other

demographics.” State v. Spears, 839 S.E.2d 450, 463 (S.C. 2020) (Beatty, C.J.,

dissenting). Eighty-four percent of Black adults have said that in dealing with the

police, Black Americans are generally treated less fairly than other demographic

groups. Drew DeSilver et al., 10 Things we Know About Race and Policing in the

U.S., Pew Rsch. Ctr. (June 3, 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-

reads/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/;

https://perma.cc/RH4E-D3UA. Eighty-seven percent have said that the criminal

27

legal system as a whole treats Black Americans less fairly. Id. Such distrust, sown

both historically through the use of the criminal legal system to subjugate Black

Americans and via biased modern police practices, has produced an objective reality

in which Black Americans lack confidence that the police will respect the exercise

of their rights. Maclin, supra at note 4, at 254. Rather, to avoid suffering physical

abuse and criminal consequences during suspicionless police interactions, Black

Americans, and Black men in particular, are often left with no other choice but to

remain “calm” and “congenial” and comply with the requests of law enforcement.

Id. at 278.

Applying this understanding as to why Black men are especially apprehensive

around police, it is clear that many of the historical features of blue-on-black

interaction that have led to this perception were present in Mr. Carter’s encounter.

First, Mr. Carter was confronted in a predominantly Black area in a group consisting

entirely of Black men by GRU officers who were wearing tactical gear and who

were visibly displaying their firearms. This alone was likely sufficient to trigger the

elevated fear that Black men experience around law enforcement not only because

the officers were carrying openly visible firearms but also because their selective

targeting reflected a pervasive understanding that the police target Black men and

treat them unfairly. Moreover, the GRU (now the VCIT) has a “reputation for

[aggression].” Mayo, 315 A.3d at 631; Robinson, 76 A.3d at 331-32, 339 (noting

28

GRU’s acknowledged “technique” of confronting people on the street, “ask[ing]

people if they have a gun,” and then “looking for a reaction,” including people’s

“movements” in response to the question (internal quotation marks omitted)); United

States v. Gibson, 366 F. Supp. 3d 14, 21 (D.D.C. 2018) (describing how the GRU

“trawl[s]” certain “neighborhoods asking occupants who fit a certain statistical

profile—mostly males in their late teens to early forties—if they possess contraband[

] [d]espite lacking any semblance of particularized suspicion when the initial contact

is made” (quoting United States v. Gross, 784 F.3d 784, 789 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

(Brown, J., concurring))). It is also known to selectively target Black individuals.

See Michael G. Tobin, Metropolitan Police Department Narcotics and Specialized

Investigations Division 5, 20, 26, (2020),

https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/office%20of%20police%

20complaints/publication/attachments/National%20Police%20Foundation%20MP

D%20NSID%20Report%20September%202020%20Final.pdf;

https://perma.cc/S29N-PMF7 (reporting that between August 1, 2019 and January

31, 2020, Black individuals were the subject of over 87% of GRU stops, 91% of

arrests, and 100% of use-of-force incidents). Given this background, it should not

come as a shock that several of the men in Mr. Carter’s group immediately

capitulated to the police presence, including Mr. Carter, by raising their shirts despite

not being asked to. Indeed, whereas any reasonable person would be fearful of

29

failing to cooperate under these circumstances, a Black man would be especially

cautious here so as to avoid potential physical retaliation. 5

Second, compounding the already racially charged and coercive environment

in which Mr. Carter’s interaction with the police took place, Officer DelBorrell

accusatorily and repetitively questioned him regarding whether he possessed a

firearm. As explained above, Black men already widely believe that police officers

disrespect their rights. We view it as likely that Officer DelBorrell’s failure to accept

Mr. Carter’s initial denial triggered a fear that Officer DelBorrell would not permit

Mr. Carter to terminate the encounter without first dispelling his suspicions. To

avoid prolonging the suspicion, Mr. Carter felt compelled to comply rather than

attempt to exercise his constitutional rights.

5

The VCIT and similar police tactical units that engage in large-scale

suspicionless investigations are generally distinguishable from those police units

that are engaged in what many refer to as community policing activities. Generally

speaking, community policing promotes the systematic use of partnerships and

problem-solving techniques to proactively address the conditions that give rise to

public safety issues. U.S. Dep’t Justice, Community Policing Defined 1 (2014),

https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-p157-pub.pdf;

https://perma.cc/9GU6-CNH7. Typically, police officers are assigned to particular

communities where they get to know and work with community leaders and others

to address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues.

30

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, taking into account the coercive nature of the officers’ conduct

and factoring in the elevated effect that this would have had on an objective and

reasonable Black man in Mr. Carter’s shoes, we hold that Mr. Carter was seized

within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when Officer DelBorrell requested

that he raise his pants. The combination of the impressive show of authority

reflected in the officers’ initial approach and the accusatory and repetitive nature of

Officer DelBorrell’s questioning already resembled a scenario in which we held a

seizure took place. Compounding the compulsive effect of the police tactics here

was that they were used against a man for whom, by virtue of his race and lived

experiences, it would have been objectively reasonable to be apprehensive around

police officers. Given the facts of this case, we believe that such apprehension would

have led an objective and reasonable Black man in Mr. Carter’s shoes to feel as

though he had to comply with the officers’ demands rather than terminating the

encounter. For this reason, we are satisfied that Mr. Carter was seized when Officer

Delborrell disbelieved his initial response, and further requested that he raise his

pants. Because this seizure was not based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause,

it was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court thus erred

in failing to suppress the fruits of the seizure—the firearm and Mr. Carter’s later

statement.

31

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate Mr. Carter’s convictions and remand for

further proceedings.

So ordered.

MCLEESE, Associate Judge, concurring in the judgment: The opinion for the

court holds that Mr. Carter was unlawfully seized. Ante at 30. I respectfully concur

in the judgment.

As the opinion for the court notes, the key facts are undisputed: (1) in public

and during the daytime, a group of five officers approached a group of ten men that

included Mr. Carter; (2) one of the officers asked Mr. Carter how he was doing;

(3) Mr. Carter lifted his shirt to show his waistband; (4) the officer asked if Mr.

Carter had “nothing” on him; (5) Mr. Carter responded no and lifted his shirt again;

and (6) the officer asked if Mr. Carter “mind[ed] hiking [his] pants for me real

quick?” Ante at 2-4.

Describing the case as “close,” ante at 9, the opinion for the court appears to

give dispositive weight to an additional consideration: that Mr. Carter as a Black

man would reasonably be “especially apprehensive around police” and “especially

distrustful of law enforcement,” ante at 24, 27, and therefore would reasonably have

felt obliged to comply with the officer’s request to hike up his pants, ante at 30.

32

In support of the conclusion that Mr. Carter’s race is properly considered in

determining whether Mr. Carter was seized, the opinion for the court relies on this

court’s decision in Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933 (D.C. 2019). I concurred

in the judgment in Dozier. Id. at 948-51 (McLeese, J., concurring in the judgment).

Among other things, I expressed uncertainty as to whether the race of a suspect can

permissibly be considered in assessing whether police conduct constitutes a seizure.

Id. at 950-51 (citing conflicting authority on issue). The opinion for the court in

Dozier held, however, that Mr. Dozier’s race should be so considered. Id. at 943-45.

That holding is binding on me. E.g., M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C. 1971).

Taking as a given that Mr. Carter’s race may properly be considered, I agree

with the conclusion of the opinion for the court that, although this is a close case,

Mr. Carter was seized. Ante at 9, 30. I therefore respectfully concur in the judgment.