United States of America v. Claude Coleman

Cleveland, Ohio criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with or two counts of drug trafficking, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and use of a

firearm during drug trafficking, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).



Late on a May evening in Cleveland, officers approached a man drinking alcohol on a sidewalk in violation of the city's open container law. He and one other man were directly next to a running car with two occupants. Several officers approached the four individuals and engaged with them. At the same time, Officer Friedrich Kaufmann peered into

the window of the car and saw marijuana in an open backpack on the backseat. Officers arrested the driver, Claude Coleman, and discovered a firearm along with several types of drugs. Coleman argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence found in the car because the police wrongfully seized him under the Fourth Amendment.



Just after midnight on May 22, 2021, officers from the Cleveland Police Department patrolled Gooding Avenue, a one-way street in the Fifth District of Cleveland. Officers drove the wrong way down the one-way street, hoping to catch potential wrongdoers off-guard. They spotted a man standing near a running parked car with an open container of alcohol, a violation of Cleveland's municipal code. He and another individual were "milling around [the] parked vehicle.” R.168 at 28–29. The vehicle's driver's side window was open.



The officers parked in front of the running car, approached the two pedestrians on foot, and

began to frisk them. Twenty seconds after parking, Officer Friedrich Kaufmann walked by the

car, peered into the rear driver's side window, and noticed an open backpack in the backseat with

a jar of marijuana in it. While the other officers frisked the pedestrians on the sidewalk, Officer

Kaufmann asked Coleman through his open driver's side window: "What's up bro? Hey, do me

a favor. Step out for me. Put your hand right up on the—” Kaufmann Video at 0:01:04–:11.

Coleman interrupted Kaufmann by opening his car door and sprinting away; the officers tackled

and handcuffed him.



Officers walked back to Coleman's car. Kaufmann told another officer that "there's some

s**t in this backpack right here. That's what I was pulling him out for.” Kaufmann Video

0:02:45–:50. Police opened the back driver's side door and found methamphetamine and two jars

of marijuana in the open backpack. They also discovered a gun, crack cocaine, and fentanyl.



* * *



The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

All of the circumstances of a search—the "totality” of them, it's often said—inform whether it is

reasonable. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996). To arrest a suspect, officers must have

probable cause to believe that the individual committed a crime. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91

(1964). To stop and frisk a suspect, officers must have reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20–22 (1968).



The "risk of harm to both the police and [others] is minimized” when officers take steps to

secure the scene or otherwise take "command of the situation” while investigating criminal

activity. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702–03 (1981). Hence, an officer who pulls a driver

over for a traffic violation may ask the passengers to exit too. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408,

413–15 (1997). Even though the passengers aren't behind the wheel and even though a traffic

violation rarely amounts to a violent crime, a brief detention prevents "sudden violence or frantic

efforts to conceal” evidence. Id. at 414 (quotation omitted). An officer searching a home for an

armed suspect likewise may detain its occupants to prevent flight and minimize other risks to

officer safety. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98–99 (2005).



Even when officers justifiably fear for their safety, the detention of a bystander must be

reasonable in scope and duration. Summers, 452 U.S. at 705 & n.21. An officer thus may not

continue to detain innocent bystanders well after officers have secured the crime scene, Bletz, 641

F.3d at 755, and an officer may not handcuff the occupants of a home while arresting a suspect

absent a sign of danger. Ingram, 185 F.3d at 592. But an officer searching a home may, by

contrast, conduct a "routine detention” of its occupants. Summers, 452 U.S. at 705 n.21

At sentencing, the district court treated Coleman as a career offender based on his prior

Ohio aggravated robbery and drug trafficking convictions. See Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2911.01(A)(1),

2925.03(A)(2). The court calculated a Guidelines range of 360 months to life and sentenced him

to 360 months.



Affirmed