United States v. Harty

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · Evidence

EvidenceSuppressionIdentificationsMirandaSearch incident to arrestreasonable suspicionTerry stopshowup

Facts

After two identified 911 callers reported gunshots at 42 Julian Street and described the gunman, Boston officers quickly encountered Harty near the nearby liquor store wearing clothing and matching several features of the description; he also appeared unusually nervous and said, "I didn't do anything" and "I don't have a gun." Officers briefly detained him, brought him back to Julian Street for a prompt showup, and McCallister and Wiley identified him from a second-floor window; Cortez also spontaneously identified him from her window. After arresting Harty, police seized his boots at booking, and an officer found a silver-plated revolver hidden along the route Cortez said the gunman had taken. Later, while transporting Harty to federal court after indictment, an ATF agent gave Miranda warnings but did not obtain a waiver, then told him about the federal charge and asked if he had useful information about the gun, prompting incriminating statements.

Issue

Whether the eyewitness identifications should be suppressed because the stop, return to the crime scene, or showup procedure violated the Fourth or Due Process Clauses; whether the boots should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful arrest; and whether Harty's post-indictment statements to ATF agents should be suppressed under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Rule

Police may conduct a brief Terry stop when, under the totality of the circumstances, they have a particularized and objective basis to suspect the person stopped of criminal activity. A prompt showup is permissible when police have good reason to use it in the immediate aftermath of a crime, and even a suggestive identification is admissible if reliable under the Biggers factors: opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty, and time between crime and confrontation. A lawful arrest justifies seizure of items incident to arrest, including later at the place of detention, but custodial questioning after Miranda warnings still requires the government to prove a knowing and intelligent waiver, which is not lightly inferred from silence and subsequent statements; police words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response constitute interrogation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Newark, two named 911 callers report that a man just fired a handgun outside an apartment building and walked toward a nearby bus stop. The dispatcher relays that the man is a Latino male in his late twenties, medium build, wearing a dark hooded coat and gray jeans. Within three minutes, Officer Dana Rees sees Victor Mena two blocks away near the bus stop; he matches those features, no one else nearby does, and as Rees exits the cruiser Mena raises his hands and blurts out, "I didn't shoot anybody." Rees also recognizes Mena from prior felony gun arrests.

If Mena moves to suppress evidence on the ground that the initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The stop is lawful. Under the majority opinion, reasonable suspicion may arise from a combination of factors that are individually innocent: a report of a recent serious crime, close temporal and geographic proximity, resemblance to the broadcast description, unusual nervousness or consciousness-of-guilt behavior, and the officer's knowledge of the suspect's prior serious criminal conduct. Even though the description is not distinctive in every respect, matching several important features and being the only nearby person who fits supports a Terry stop.