In United States v. Hamilton, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-10161 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court affirmed Hamilton’s conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
Here are the basic facts: Law enforcement had some specific information connecting Hamilton to an unlawful shooting, but did not have a warrant for his arrest. When they located and tried to stop him two weeks after the shooting, he ran. The officers chased Hamilton on foot for several blocks, and observed him reaching for his waistband. An officer ordered Hamilton to show his hands and get on the ground, but Hamilton continued running. A second police car stopped in front of Hamilton, and officers tackled him to the ground. Hamilton was handcuffed and arrested. After the arrest, officers searched Hamilton and found a gun, marijuana, scales, and $6,692 in cash.
The Court also rejected Hamilton's challenges to the jury instructions and his sentence.Flight from law enforcement can be suggestive of wrongdoing and give rise to probable cause when coupled with specific reasons to suspect that the person fleeing may have engaged in criminal conduct. Here, law enforcement had specific information connecting Defendant Robert Hamilton to an unlawful shooting in downtown San Francisco. When they located and tried to stop Hamilton two weeks after the shooting, he ran. The totality of circumstances surrounding Hamilton’s flight gave the officers probable cause to arrest him. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Hamilton’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his arrest. We also reject Hamilton’s jury-instructions and sentencing-enhancement challenges and affirm his conviction and sentence.The district court concluded that the officers had a lawful basis to stop Hamilton because they reasonably suspected that he was involved in the Valentine’s Day shooting. Hamilton does not dispute this. Nonetheless, Hamilton asserts that the officers’ attempt to stop him was unlawful because they intended to conduct an arrest, not merely an investigatory stop, from the outset.Under the circumstances presented, the officers’ intent when they initially approached Hamilton is immaterial because he ran before the officers could do anything other than order him to stop. Thus, in their initial approach, the officers only attempted a seizure. They did not actually seize Hamilton. And where no seizure occurred during the officers’ initial contact with Hamilton, the Fourth Amendment was not triggered.Moreover, the Supreme Court has instructed that “outside limited contexts such as an ‘inventory search or administrative inspection . . . an officer’s motive [does not] invalidate[] objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment.’” . . . . And if Hamilton had not fled and the officers had immediately arrested him, a different analysis would apply. But that is not what happened, and we must decide this case based on the facts as they are, not as they might have been.Hamilton further contends that the officers’ initial approach was improper because one of them falsely stated that there was a warrant for his arrest. While the officer’s statement about the existence of an arrest warrant was incorrect, the record does not establish whether it was a lie or a mistake. But even assuming it was a lie, there was no constitutional violation. Officers are not categorically prohibited from using deception in investigations. But deception may be unreasonable if it is used “to gain access to places and things [officers] would otherwise have no legal authority to reach.”Here, the officers had reasonable suspicion that Hamilton was involved in the Valentine’s Day shooting, which Hamilton does not dispute. Therefore, they had a lawful basis to stop and question him without a warrant.Hamilton also argues that his arrest was unlawful because the officers did not have probable cause to believe he had committed a crime.. The Supreme Court has instructed that “[h]eadlong flight—wherever it occurs— is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.” Even where an “individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business, . . . [f]light, by its very nature, is not ‘going about one’s business’; in fact, it is just the opposite.”That said, flight is not per se suspicious. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s totality standard, “[t]here may be circumstances where a person’s flight has a perfectly innocent and reasonable explanation” and thus does not reasonably engender suspicion. And if the reason for the suspect’s flight is ambiguous—that is, it could have been to evade law enforcement or it could have been for some other innocent purpose—the flight itself cannot justify an arrest.[W]hen the officers tackled Hamilton to stop his flight, they had reason to conclude that there was a “fair probability that [Hamilton] had committed a crime,” Struckman, 603 F.3d at 739, and the district court correctly concluded that Hamilton’s arrest was lawful. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Hamilton’s motion to suppress.
