The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.

I, Lee R. Johnson, do declare that on this date, November 26, 2024, as

required by Supreme Court Rule 29, I have served the enclosed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

requests leave to file the attached Petition for a Writ of Certiorari without prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court has determined that the defendant in the above matter is financially unable to employ counsel and finds that it is in the interest of justice that counsel be assigned.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lee Johnson, Attorney ID 189935, is appointed as counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Attorney Lee Richard Johnson is hereby appointed to represent appellant in this appeal

Information regarding the CJA appointment and vouchering process in eVoucher will be emailed to counsel shortly.

As required by Sup.

Ct. R. 33.1(h), I certify that the PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the above titled matter complies with the typeface requirements of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(b), being prepared in Century 13 point font for the text and 13 point font for footnotes, and this brief contains 2701 words, excluding the parts that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d) as needed.

Analysis “We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but the underlying factual determinationsfor clear error, giving due weight to inferences drawn by law enforcementofficials.” United States v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980, 982 (8th Cir. 2012).

Moreover, when one of the officers began to approach the red Saturn, Winborn suspiciously insisted, “ly]ou’ve got the wrong car.” While these facts separately could be consistent with innocent behavior, when taken together, they give rise to reasonable suspicion to justify the stop under the totality ofthe circumstances.” See United States v. Trogdon, 789 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 2015); Juvenile TK, 134 F.3d at 904 (“[I]n light of the totality of circumstances ..., in particular, the short distance between the location of the stop and the crime *The government argues Winborn’s Saturn further matched the third 911 caller’s description because it was missing its front license plate.

CASE0:22-cr-00319-PJS-JFD Doc. 89 Filed 05/15/23 Page 2 of 4 Winborn and Davis both contend that Judge Docherty erred in determining that Officers Sporny and Sanchez had a reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the red Saturn from which defendants and firearms were ultimately seized.

Officer Sporny's contemporaneous report weighs against reasonable suspicion becauseit indicates he stopped the red Saturn based on a hunch it might be involved in the shots fired.

We're here this morning for motions hearings in the case of United States vs. Marion Maurice Winborn and Marquis Deshon Davis, this Court's File Number 22~-CR-319.

Mr. Winborn entered into a conditional plea agreement under which he plead guilty to one count of a superseding indictment that charged him with Felon in Possession of a Firearm but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

This result marks a far departure from the fundamental Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that this Court established in a long line of decisions, including Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968), United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981), Florida v. J.L.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) this Court held that police officers could temporarily detain a suspect, provided they relied upon "specific, reasonable inferences," and not simply upon an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.''

Even with this specific report of illegal conduct, this Court stated that the circumstances before it presented a "close case" on whether the tip provided police with sufficient information to form a reasonable suspicion of the vehicle was involved in criminal activity.

Second, the caller reported seeing two people wearing masks "standing by" the red Saturn, which the Eighth Circuit ruled, supported an inference of "suspicious, perhaps criminal activity."