Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialtestimonywitness testimony
appealtrial

Related Cases

United States v. Nicholas, 686 Fed.Appx. 570
View Case »
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F.Supp.2d 362, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 12,464
View Case »
Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal.App.3d 171, 203 Cal.Rptr. 13
View Case »
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600
View Case »
Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 568 S.E.2d 671
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wade v. United States, 173 A.3d 87

Facts

On October 8, 2015, an anonymous 911 caller reported a man with a gun in his waist walking in a specific area. Police officers responded and identified Wade, who matched the description provided by the caller. As officers approached, Wade fled, discarding items and running with his hand near his waist. A civilian eyewitness later confirmed seeing Wade toss a gun near a dumpster, which was subsequently recovered by the police. Wade was arrested and found with ammunition matching the recovered firearm.

At approximately 3:30 p.m. on October 8, 2015, an anonymous 911 caller reported a man with a gun in his waist walking in the 1200 block of 7th Street NW.

Issue

Did the police have reasonable suspicion to seize Wade, and was there probable cause for his arrest? Was the show-up identification procedure unduly suggestive? Was the evidence sufficient to support Wade's convictions, and was the imposition of a three-year mandatory minimum sentence appropriate?

Did the police have reasonable suspicion to seize Wade, and was there probable cause for his arrest?

Rule

Police may conduct an investigatory stop if they have reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal activity may be occurring. Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but only a probability of criminal activity. Show-up identifications must not be so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

Officers may conduct an investigatory stop if they “have a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal activity may be occurring.”

Analysis

The court found that the anonymous 911 call provided reasonable suspicion for the officers to stop Wade, as he matched the description and fled when approached. The recovery of the gun and eyewitness testimony established probable cause for Wade's arrest. The show-up identification was deemed not unduly suggestive, as it was conducted shortly after the crime and did not create a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions.

The court found that the anonymous 911 call provided reasonable suspicion for the officers to stop Wade, as he matched the description and fled when approached.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the police acted lawfully in seizing Wade and that the evidence supported his convictions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the police acted lawfully in seizing Wade and that the evidence supported his convictions.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the trial court's findings of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and the sufficiency of evidence against Wade.

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the trial court's findings of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and the sufficiency of evidence against Wade.

You must be