# Opposition Brief — Cochran v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_2136%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1992 - **Citation:** 502 U.S. 1093 ## Text Sunrane Court, U.S. =) FILED No. 91-916 : FEBS 4992 HE CLERK Iu the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1991 STEVEN FLETCHER COCHRAN, PETITIONER Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION KENNETH W. STARR Solicitor General ROBERT S. MUELLER, III Assistant Attorney General THOMAS E. BooTH Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the stop of petitioner’s car and the subse- quent seizure of an ammunition clip and a firearm from it violated the Fourth Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS TREE Ea AE ORAS SE EERE CAD ESE Se aE EE aS 1 EEE ERI SR OCC AC ECP, RR 1 SER STE Sa is Ste es ot sve PRAT Se Dee SE SOND 1 EAL e SO OE LD Ae Te SOS 4 IIIT cass sleuieicas ccassaessicanlicheatecsteaetaltcesnenicicaidskebinacaxcebesseniacnamensoaae 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Brinegar Vv. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) ___.... 4 Michigan Vv. Long, 463 U.S. 1082 (1983) 2.00.00... 5 Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) ........... 3,4 New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) ......0000... 5 United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1052 (1989) .......... 5 United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 789 (1982) ............. 5,6 Jnited States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) _....... 5 United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) _........ 4 United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 1174 (D.C. rll a As Elan Pan TORE HERS 5 Constitution and statutes: ee 4,5,6 es, ccscmencinbinienessabousievsan 2 a 1,3 Iu the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1991 No. 91-916 STEVEN FLETCHER COCHRAN, PETITIONER Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1-10) is reported at 939 F.2d 337. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on July 17, 1991. A petition for rehearing was de- nied on September 6, 1991. Pet. App. 11-12. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on Decem- ber 5, 1991. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATEMENT Following a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, petitioner was convicted of possessing an unregistered (1) 2 firearm not identified by its serial number, in viola- tion of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). Following a jury trial in the same court, he was convicted of interstate transportation of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to concur- rent terms of 52 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1-10. 1. On February 21, 1990, after receiving informa- tion that petitioner was a drug dealer, law enforce- ment agents began surveillance of his residence. The agents observed petitioner take a thickly packaged rectangular box from his coat, place it in the trunk of his car, and drive to the residence of George Reid. The agents, who were experienced investigators, be- lieved that petitioner’s box contained drugs, because kilogram quantities of cocaine are frequently trans- ported in packages of that style and shape. The agents also knew that petitioner had numerous ar- rests for carrying weapons in his car, including one incident in which Reid was a passenger. Pet. App. 19-32. Based on their observations, the agents obtained a search warrant for petitioner’s residence and began administrative forfeiture proceedings against peti- tioner’s car. On February 23, 1990, the agents ar- rived at petitioner’s residence to execute the search warrant. To promote a safe and orderly search, the agents decided to seek petitioner’s assistance in ex- ecuting the warrant. They knew that he carried arms and kept a guard dog on the premises. Before the agents approached the house, however, petitioner drove away from the premises in his car. Pet. App. 2, 33-34. Two agents stopped petitioner’s car and ordered him to step outside. Petitioner quickly moved his right arm, causing the agent on the driver’s side to 3 open the car door and repeat his order for petitioner to exit. When petitioner continued his motion, the agent pulled petitioner out of the car, while the other agent opened the car’s glove box, causing a loaded ammunition clip to fall out. The agents knew that petitioner, as a convicted felon, was not entitled to possess a firearm or ammunition. The agents ar- rested petitioner and later searched the car and seized an unregistered machine gun from the trunk. Petitioner filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evi- dence seized from his car. The district court denied the motion. Pet. App. 2-8, 34-36, 76-79, 100-102, 155-161. 2. The court of appeals affirmed petitioner’s con- viction, rejecting his contention that the evidence seized from his car should hzve been suppressed. The court concluded that under Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), the agents properly stopped petitioner, after he departed from his residence, to seek his assistance in executing the warrant. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that the agents manipulated the circumstances to permit them to search petitioner’s car. Pet. App. 3-5. The majority also concluded that the search of the glove box in petitioner’s car was justified by the agents’ concern for their own safety, which was precipitated by peti- tioner’s threatening arm movement, and that the dis- covery of the ammunition clip gave the agents proba- ble cause to search the car and to seize the clip and the firearm. /d. at 6. Judge Wellford dissented. In his view, the decision in Michigan vy. Summers did not permit law enforce- ment agents to detain petitioner once he was away from his residence or to return him to the premises to assist in executing the search warrant. Pet. App. 8-10. 4 ARGUMENT Petitioner contends (Pet. 12-21) that the govern- ment violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping his car and subsequently seizing a machine gun and am- munition clip from it. In particular, he maintains that the court of appeals misapplied Michigan v. Sum- mers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), because the right of law enforcement agents armed with a search warrant for a residence to restrain an occupant from leaving the premises does not extend to detaining a person who has already driven away. See Pet. 15-17. There is no need to reach that issue, however, because the law enforcement agents had probable cause—or at least reasonable suspicion—to stop petitioner while he was in his car, based on the information supporting the search warrant. Furthermore, even if there is a question under Summers whether the agents could force petitioner to return to his residence, they cer- tainly were entitled, at the leasc, to stop petitioner to request his assistance in executing the warrant. Thus, petitioner was lawfully stopped, and his subse- quent threatening motion justified the search of his car. 1. Law enforcement agents can arrest a suspect for a felony in a public place without a warrant if they have probable cause to beiieve that the suspect has committed a crime. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officers’ knowledge are sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed or is commit- ting a crime. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176 (1949). Here, the law enforcement agents were entitled to stop petitioner’s car because they had probable cause, based on the information justifying the search warrant, to believe that peti- 5 tioner was engaged in drug trafficking. Because the agents had probable cause to arrest petitioner, they were entitled to open petitioner’s glove compartment as a search incident to arrest to prevent him from reaching for a weapon. New York vy. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). And upon discovery of the ammunition clip, the agents were entitled to search the trunk and seize the machine gun. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). 2. Even if the agents’ information did not estab- lish probable cause to arrest petitioner, it gave them reasonable suspicion to stop petitioner’s car for fur- ther investigation. See, e.g., United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682-688 (1985). Alternatively, the agents were entitled, under the Fourth Amendment’s standard of reasonableness, to stop petitioner to re- quest his assistance in executing the search warrant. See, e.g., id. at 682 (“‘we examine ‘whether the offi- cer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circum- stances which justified the interference in the first place’ ’’). Under either rationale, when petitioner—a person who was known to have an affinity for firearms— moved his arm suddenly upon hearing the agents’ command, the agents properly concluded that peti- tioner was armed and dangerous. See, e.g., United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 97 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1052 (1989); United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 1174, 1180 n.62 (D.C. Cir. 1987). To prevent petitioner from drawing a fire- arm, the agents properly restrained petitioner and opened the car’s glove box. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). And after the agents discovered the ammunition clip, they had probable cause to search the rest of petitioner’s car and to seize the 6 machine gun. See United States v. Ross, supra. Thus, the government’s search of petitioner’s auto- mobile was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, ir- respective of whether this Court’s decision in Sum- mers would have allowed the government to return petitioner to his residence while the search was conducted. CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted. KENNETH W. STARR Solicitor General ROBERT S. MUELLER, III Assistant Attorney General THOMAS E. BooTH Attorney FEBRUARY 1992 vw U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1992 312324 45298 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_2136%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.