# United States v. Eddie Louis Taylor

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 25, 1990 · 917 F.2d 1402

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9480984

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Louis TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 25, 1990
- **Citations:** 917 F.2d 1402; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18650; 1990 WL 161263
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Merritt
- **Judges:** Merritt, Keith, Jones
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated by United States v. Eddie Louis Taylor, 925 F.2d 990 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9480984

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that police officers' observations of Taylor, a black suspect, walking nervously and quickly through the airport were racially-biased and insufficient to justify a search and seizure

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Chief Judge,
concurring
I concur in the Court’s conclusions about this case. I particularly agree that law enforcement agents cannot make a racial characteristic the predominant feature in the drug courier profile. Like the Court I can find no real basis for distinguishing this man from the other passengers who deplaned, except for race.
But I would reach the result even if race did not seem to be the overriding reason for the officer’s intervention. Prior to obtaining any evidence whatever that could establish “probable cause,” Officer Eldridge arrested Taylor. Eldridge candidly admitted as much when he testified: Taylor was not in fact free to leave. All of the signs and circumstances of the sidewalk confrontation point in the same direction. Thus prior to finding any evidence of a crime, Taylor was “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It was not a brief Terry stop to make inquiry. It was an illegal arrest.
The seizure of the contraband was a direct consequence of the illegal arrest. One need not necessarily debate the question of whether the opening of the bag was consensual at the moment Taylor unzipped it. In the larger sense it was coerced because it was the fruit of an unlawful arrest, and so the search was also unlawful.
Under our current law, there is no escape from the conclusion that the contraband must be suppressed. Constitutional rules protecting individual privacy and freedom from unreasonable governmental restraint apply to police officers as well as courts, and the officer's unnecessarily precipitous and coercive action in violation of these rules, unfortunately, has defeated his ease.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9480984. Public record. Not legal advice.