U.S. v Shaffers

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress gun recovered from his car during encounter with police. While Dist. Ct. found that defendant was seized at time of encounter, where police positioned their car in such manner that defendant could not move car and reasonable person would not have felt free to leave, officers had reasonable suspicion for Terry stop to support instant seizure of gun, where: (1) car was located in high crime area, and defendant and other occupants were playing loud music in violation of local noise ordinance; (2) officers smelled marijuana near car; and (3) officers observed defendant make furtive movements near driver’s seat floorboard, and defendant otherwise failed to comply with officer’s directive to raise his hands. Also, Dist. Ct. did not violate Confrontation Clause by admitting grand jury testimony of one occupant of car, where: (1) occupant testified at trial that she had no memory of encounter with police; and (2) defendant’s counsel was able to cross-examine occupant about her alleged lack of memory and her lack of credibility, as well as benefits she received from government. Ct. emphasized that while attacks on witness’s memory may not always succeed, successful cross-examination is not constitutional guarantee. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that government failed to establish sufficient nexus linking him to gun found on driver’s side floorboard where defendant was seated, where Ct. found that evidence established defendant’s constructive possession of gun, since: (1) defendant was seen making furtive movements near location of gun such that jury could conclude that defendant was attempting to hide gun; (2) defendant fled scene from officers; and (3) defendant attempted to influence witnesses to say that he was elsewhere at time of police encounter.