Constitutional Question:
-
Was the use of a police patrol dog to subdue Defendant during a Terry detention transform the detention into an arrest requiring probable cause?
Police were conducting an extra patrol in a housing project due to multiple fights and a stabbing which recently occurred.Police observed two-men standing unusually close to each other and as police approached in their marked patrol car, the men looked at the police.One of the men ran to a nearby apartment and the other man, Defendant Charles Lawshea, walked than ran away from the police car. Police followed Defendant Lawshea who sprinted around an apartment building three-times.Police then stopped and warned Defendant Lawshea to stop or his police dog would be released.Defendant Lawshea disobeyed the warning and continued to flee.
Police released the police patrol dog, who quickly caught Defendant Lawshea, knocked him to the ground and bit him in the back.Defendant Lawshea fought with the police dog and attempted to push the dog off.Once Defendant Lawshea stopped fighting, the patrol dog was called off. Defendant Lawshea, who was laying face down on, began reaching underneath his stomach and refused police orders, three-times, to keep his hands out.Defendant Lawshea, again, disobeyed police orders and police recommitted the patrol dog.Again, Defendant Lawshea fought with the patrol dog, but shortly gave up.The patrol dog was called off, as other police officers arrived and handcuffed Defendant Lawshea.A loaded small caliber handgun was found on the ground near Defendant Lawshea’s stomach area and where he had been reaching.
The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Defendant Lawshea’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (the gun) as a result of an unlawful seizure. The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit found police had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant Lawshea and the use of a police dog to effectuate the Terry detention was reasonable and did not transform the Terry detention into an arrest requiring probable cause. Therefore, the evidence was admissible and the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois was affirmed.