United States of America v. Hamid Murdock

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 21-2273
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HAMID MURDOCK,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-19-cr-00254-001)
District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 13, 2022
Before: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 14, 2022)
____________
OPINION*
____________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Hamid Murdock appeals his judgment of conviction. We will affirm.1
Murdock entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Murdock argues the District Court
should have granted his motion to suppress because Officer Robert Bakos lacked
reasonable suspicion to frisk Murdock. For the reasons stated by the District Court in its
persuasive opinion, we hold that reasonable suspicion supported the frisk.
The facts are essentially undisputed. Murdock was a backseat passenger in a car
Officer Bakos stopped on a January evening. Murdock concedes the validity of the traffic
stop and that the smell of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
See United States v. Ramos, 443 F.3d 304, 308 (3d Cir. 2006). Reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity is not enough to justify a frisk, however; the officer must have
reasonable suspicion that a person is “armed and dangerous.” United States v. Murray,
821 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968)). This
inquiry is based on the totality of the circumstances, and “we give considerable deference
to police officers’ determinations of reasonable suspicion given their own experience and
specialized training.” United States v. Graves, 877 F.3d 494, 498–99 (3d Cir. 2017)
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review denials of motions to suppress for clear error as to the
underlying factual findings and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s
application of the law to those facts.” United States v. Hall, 28 F.4th 445, 449 n.1 (3d Cir.
2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
The officers had reasonable suspicion that Murdock was armed and dangerous,
even though he complied with all of Officer Bakos’s requests. The traffic stop occurred
after dark in a high-crime area. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). In
addition, Murdock was “extremely nervous” and “breathing heavily.” App. 73; see id.
Most significantly, when Officer Bakos asked for Murdock’s license, Murdock answered
that “he [did] not have it on him, but then ma[de] a quick motion up with his right hand”
to his right breast pocket. App. 73–74. “Quick and furtive movements,” along with other
indicators of criminal activity, support a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and
dangerous. United States v. Yamba, 506 F.3d 251, 255 (3d Cir. 2007). Officer Bakos’s
experience also informed his decision. See Graves, 877 F.3d at 499. He feared that
Murdock was reaching for a gun because he has seen guns hidden in pockets the size of
Murdock’s. Together, these facts provided “a particularized and objective basis” to
conclude that Murdock was armed and dangerous. See United States v. Brown, 448 F.3d
239, 246 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)). For
these reasons, we will affirm.

-- 3 of 3 --