# United States v. Edward D. Patterson, Richard L. Flintoff, Jimmie R. Oglesby, and Gregory C. Martinson

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 15, 1981 · 648 F.2d 625

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467918

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. PATTERSON, Richard L. Flintoff, Jimmie R. Oglesby, and Gregory C. Martinson, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 15, 1981
- **Citations:** 648 F.2d 625; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12328
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Poole
- **Judges:** Wright, Poole, Norris
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467918

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[ojrdering [the driver] from the car was also a reasonable precaution” in the context of investigating a narcotics deal
- noting that any juror prejudice against one defendant would “carry over to such persons closely associated with him in the jurors’ minds”

## Opinion text

POOLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the reversal of the convictions of appellants Patterson, Martinson, and Flintoff, for the reasons stated in the majority opinion. I also concur in affirming appellant Oglesby’s conviction. However, I do not believe it is possible to justify the officers’ approach to Oglesby on a founded suspicion analysis. Oglesby had never been *635 seen by the officers during this long investigation. The only “objective manifestations” that Oglesby was, or was about to be, involved in criminal activity were vague references to things that one of the officers heard, from a source unidentified to us, about the color of a car seen at another point during the stakeout, and the connection of someone with a band. Such tenuous assertions cannot form the basis for founded suspicion. Had Oglesby remained silent, I would hold that there was no basis for an investigatory stop and that his conviction should be reversed.
However, Oglesby did not remain silent; rather, immediately and voluntarily he told the officers that he had a gun. In these circumstances, justification of the officers’ approach to him becomes unnecessary. Even without prior reason to connect Ogles-by with any wrongdoing, once he had spontaneously confessed to possession of a concealed weapon, they were justified in taking it and in arresting him. I do not think that justice is served by stretching for founded suspicion, especially where the exercise is not necessary. Hence, I would affirm Oglesby’s conviction on these grounds.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467918. Public record. Not legal advice.