Grant v. United States - Court Opinion on Motion to Suppress

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before public ation in the Atlantic and Maryland Re porters. Use rs are requested to noti fy the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that c orrections may be m ade before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUM BIA COURT OF APP EALS No. 2 4-CF- 0571 A LLEN G RANT, A PPELLANT, v. U NITED S TATES, A PPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of C olumbia (2022 - CF2 - 007628) (Hon. Erik P. Christian, Trial Judge) (Submitted January 13, 202 6 Decided February 26, 2026) Peter H. Meyers was on the briefs for appellan t. Edward R. Martin, Jr., United State s Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Joni M. Gerrity, Alexis N. Dunlap, and David P. Saybolt, Assistant Unite d States Attorneys, we re on the brief for appe llee. Before E ASTERLY and S HANKE R, Associate Judge s, and R UIZ, Senior Jud ge. S HANKER, Associate Judge: A t a round 8:00 p.m. on a late - Decembe r night in 2022, District of Columbia Metropolit an Police De partment (MPD) Officer T y Amarant - West responded to a ra dio call reporting s everal large, disorderly groups gathering in c onnection with a local rapper’s appearance i n Southeast Washingto n, D.C. The crowd was dispersin g as Officer Amarant - West approached, but as he

2 began to drive away, he observe d a group of fo ur men walking in the same dire ction and hea rd through his cra cked window one of them make a co mment that, in Offi cer Amarant - West’s view, related to engaging in gun viol ence. After i nitially monitoring the group, Office r Amarant - West got out of his car and, after following them for a short period, be gan talking to the four men. Appellant Allen Gr ant was one of the four, and, without be ing asked, he told Officer Amara nt - West that he did not have any guns i n hi s possession. Mr. Grant was carry ing a satch el acro ss his torso and, after Officer Am arant - West asked him what it contained, he moved it from his right hip to his lo wer his back and unde r his jacket. Concerned by this movement, Officer Amarant - West asked Mr. Grant multiple times why he moved the satc hel and to let him see it. Mr. Grant deni ed having anythin g in the satc hel and continue d walking down the sidewalk. With Officer Amara nt - W est following him, Mr. Grant rem oved the satchel from his b ody and threw it over a fence into a nea rby grassy area. As Mr. Grant walk ed away, another offic er inspected the satchel and found a gun with an extende d magazine. Moments later, Mr. Grant, who was still being foll owed by Officer Amarant - West, broke into a run and fled. After this initial interaction with police, Mr. Grant evaded officers for approxi mately thirty minutes before being arrested.

3 Prior to his trial for multiple offenses stemming from that arrest, Mr. Gra nt moved to suppress a ll evidence obtained from the satchel. The tria l court denied Mr. Grant’s motion, finding tha t Mr. Gran t was not seized within the m eaning of the Fourth Amendm ent before he threw the sa tchel. We affirm because we agree that the police did not seize M r. Grant until he was arreste d after throwing the sa t chel and an officer found t he gun. Consequently, we conclude that the evi dence found in the satchel was n ot t he fruit of an illegal seizure and Mr. Grant’s motion to suppress that evidenc e was properly denie d. I. Factual and Proce dural Background We distill the ba ckground below from the trial court’s fact ual findings and, where necessa ry, evidence from the suppression hearing. Se e Mayo v. United States, 315 A.3d 606, 617 (D. C. 2024) (en banc). A. Mr. Allen ’s Arres t While on patrol on a Decem b er evening, Offic er Amarant - West r eceived a radio call from othe r officers that several “large [,] disorderly group s” were forming in connection with a local rapper’s appea rance in the area near 3255 23rd Street, SE. This area, acc ording to Officer Ama rant - West, was known for “[a ] lot of felony offenses,” a nd the District’s “Shot S pott er” system had detected appr oximately

4 twenty - two gunshots the re in the week prior t o Mr. Grant’s arrest. O fficer Amarant - West drove to the area in his ma rked police cruiser and found the groups dispersing. As Officer Amaran t - West continued his pa trol, he observed a group of four individuals, including Mr. G r ant, walking down th e street. Office r Amarant - West’s car window wa s open, and he heard someone in the group say something like, “ T hey were trying to a rgue but we’re not about t hat; we’re going to get it poppi ng.” This concerned Office r Amarant - West because, in his experience, disputes typically occurred after sim ilar large gatherings a nd often included gun vio lence. As a result, Officer Amara nt - W est monitore d the group, inclu ding by following the m into a parking lot, where the four entered a car and then got out a nd began walking up t he street toward a n apartment complex. The rest of the e vents are visible on Offic er Amarant - West’s and another officer’s body - wor n camera (BWC) footage. After first observing t hat one of the individuals ha d a satchel, Officer Ama rant - West bega n following the group and called ou t, “ H ey, yo!” As he continued a fter the group, he turned to an offic er trailing behind him a nd made a comment that is difficult to decipher. The other officer then re ported the officers’ loca tion over the radio and said that they were “making contac t with about four in dividuals.” As Officer Am arant - West got closer

5 to the group, he cal led out “hey, yo” again, but no one in the group acknowledge d him. Now closer, Offi cer Amarant - West asked the g roup, “Y a’ll don’t want to talk to us?” At this point, members of the group, including Mr. Grant, bega n engaging with Officer Ama rant - West. Mr. Grant had a red plastic c up in his hand, which Officer Amara nt - W est later testified is a type “frequently” used to consume alcohol in public and was a “factor” in why he approached the group. Mr. Grant turned t o face Offi cer Amar ant - Wes t a nd, unprompted, opene d his jacket, lifted his shirt to reveal his wa istband, and told the officer tha t he did not have any guns. In response, Officer Amara nt - W est ask ed, “ W hat about in the satchel you g ot?” Mr. Grant denied having a nything other t han “weed” in his sa tchel. Wh ile answering Officer Amarant - West, Mr. Grant moved the satchel from his front r ight hip area to his lower back, undernea th his jacket, a nd continued walking dow n the sidewalk. In response to this move ment, Officer Am arant - West asked Mr. Grant why he turned “like tha t” and told him to “show me t he satch el, then.” As Officer Amarant - West continue d to follow Mr. Grant on the sidewalk, he asked again t o see the satche l and ask ed Mr. Grant, “Why’d you just do it like t hat?” Offic er Amarant - West then appeared to tap Mr. Grant on the arm (the footage i s somewhat

6 unclear) and rep eat ed the question. In response, Mr. Grant turned toward Officer Amarant - West and denied ha ving anything in his satchel. Mr. Grant continued w alking on the sidewa lk and Officer Amarant - West followed whil e shining his fla shlight on Mr. Grant. Unprompted, Mr. Grant again denied having anyt hing in his satchel and a ppeared to shift i t with his hands. The satchel was then visible in Mr. Gr ant’s hands, and Officer Ama rant - West told Mr. Grant to “hold on for a second.” Mr. Grant did not “hold on”; instead, he sa id, “I’m throwing it, ” and he threw the satchel pa st the officer’s head and over a fence into a nearby grassy area. He then walked awa y from Officer Amarant - We st. The other office r, who had been following Offic er Amarant - West and Mr. Grant, inspecte d the satchel, disc overed a gun with an extended magaz ine, an d told Officer Ama rant - West to stop Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant, who was still being followed by Offic er Amarant - West, fled. He evade d the police for approximate ly thirty minutes be fore officers found and arre sted him. B. The Trial Co urt Proceedings The government c harged Mr. Grant with unlaw ful possession of a firea rm (prior conviction) (F IP) (D.C. Cod e § 22 - 4503(a)(1)); carrying a pistol w ithout a license (CPWL) (D.C. Code § 22 - 4504(a)(2)); p ossession of a large - capacity

7 ammunition fee ding device (D.C. Co de § 7- 2506.01(b)); possession of an unregistere d firearm (UF) (D.C. Code § 7 - 2502.01(a)); and unl awful possession of ammunition (D.C. Code § 7- 2506. 01(a)(3)). Before trial, M r. Grant moved to suppress all evidence inc ident to his arrest because, acc ording to him, Offic er Amarant - West seized him without a reasonable suspicion of wron gdoing in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Follow ing a suppression heari ng, th e trial court denied Mr. Grant’s motion. Foc using exclusively on the intera ction between M r. Grant and police prior to Mr. Grant ’s flight, the court found that “the re was no seizure” bec ause Mr. Grant “continued t o walk and began running after he threw th e satc hel.” The court further found the re was “no show of force” by office rs and described the encounter a s “an investigatory conversa tion.” 1 Notwithstanding its determination that t here had not been a seizure, the court also found that Offic er Amarant - West had reasona ble articulable suspicion “to speak with Mr. Grant and to investigate further after the initial contact.” The case proceeded to tr ial, and a jury found Mr. Grant guilty of the FIP, CPWL, and U F counts. The trial court sente nced Mr. Grant to a total of twenty - four 1 The court’s decision is somewh at confusing because at one point it call ed the interaction be tween Mr. Grant and Officer Amarant - West a Terry stop, but shortly therea fter it reite rated that “[a ]t no point was [Mr. Grant ] stopped or seiz ed.”

8 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised rel ease. This appeal follow ed. II. Analysis Mr. Grant asserts that Officer Ama rant - West seized him without reasonable articulable suspi cion that he was enga ged in criminal activi ty before he discarded the satch el. Therefore, in Mr. Grant’s view, b ecause the sei zure was illegal, the evidence found in t he satchel, namely the gun and ammunit ion, must be suppre ssed. W e conclude that offic ers did not seize Mr. Grant unt il after they discove red the gun in his discarded sa tchel and we ther efore affirm the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress. A. Standard of Revie w We review a tria l court’s order re garding a motion to supp ress de novo for legal issues, but “ generally defer to the trial court’s findings of fac t ‘unless they are clearly erroneous.’” Mayo, 315 A.3d at 616. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id. at 617. We are not limited, however, to the trial court’s e xpress findings and may e xamine the “rec ord evidence presented at a suppression hea ring to determine whether the govern ment proved that a de fendant’s

9 constitutional rights were not violated. ” Id. (citing Germany v. Unite d States, 984 A.2d 1217, 1221 (D. C. 2009)). B. Seizures Under the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendme nt to the United States Constitution prot ects against unreaso nable sear ches and seizur es. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Law enforcement officers may not seize an i ndividual unless they ha v e “ either probable cause to arres t an individual for a crime or at least reasonable a rticulable suspic ion that an individual is engaged in criminal conduc t to effect the lesser intrusi on of a brief Terry stop to investigate whether that is in fact the case. ” Ma yo, 315 A.3d at 620 (citation modifie d). A seizure “ can take the form of physica l force or a show of authorit y that in some way restrains t he liberty of the pe rson.” Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306, 311 (2021) (cita tion modified); see a lso Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968) (“Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the libe rty of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘se i zure’ has occurred. ”). A seizure without th e use of physical forc e “does not occur simply because a police officer approac hes an individual and asks a few questions.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991). “So long as a reasonabl e person would fe el free to disregar d the police and go a bout his business, the encounter is conse nsual and no reasonable

10 suspicion is require d.” Id. (citation modified). A police encount er may “ rise to the level of a se izure if the polic e ‘convey a me ssage that compli ance with their re quests is required,’” Golden v. United States, 248 A.3d 925, 935 (D.C. 2021) (quo ting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 435), or “if, in view of all the circumst ances. . . a reasonable person would have believed that he was not fre e to leave [,] ” I.N.S. v. De lgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215 (198 4) (quoting United State s v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 55 4 (1980) (plurality opi nion)). As relev ant her e, f or there to be a seizure by a police officer by a show of authority, there must be an “actual submission” by the suspect; “otherwise, there is at most an atte mpted seizure, so far as the Fourth Amendme nt is concerned.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254 (2007); se e also Golden, 248 A.3d at 935 (“Submission re quires, at m inimum, that a suspec t manifest complia nce with police orders or requests.” (c itation modified)). In other words, unless the defendant “yield[s]” to la w enforceme nt’s show of authorit y, a seizure has not occurred. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991); see also United States v. Pope, 313 A.3d 565, 572 (D.C. 2024) (“[A] police order t o stop is not a seizure if the person does not submit to t he official command.”).

11 C. Discussion The outcome in this c ase turns on whether office rs seized Mr. Grant prior to discovering the gun in his satchel, because Mr. Grant does not contest tha t after that point officers ha d at least reasonable suspicion to seize him. Mr. Grant does not argue that offic ers seized hi m using physica l force. See To rres, 592 U.S. at 311. Instead, Mr. Grant contends that he was seiz ed by police when Officer Amarant - West repeatedly dema nded to see the satchel he wa s carrying because those demands made clear that Mr. Grant was not free to leave. H e cites a number of our prior decisions t o support the proposition that, in sc enarios like th e one here, we do not require that a defendant have submit ted or compl ied with police commands to conclude that a seizur e occur red. The government counters t hat submission to an officer’s show of author ity is required for a s eizure to occur. Here, becaus e Mr. Grant never submitted to Officer Am arant - West’s requests, as demonstrated by his failure to stop w alking and his discarding of the sa tchel, the governm ent argues that he was not se ized within the meaning of the Fourth A mendment until later. We agree with the gove rnment. 1. Police Did Not Seize Mr. Grant Until They Arrested Him The repeate d requests by the police tha t Mr. Grant stop and show them his bag constitute d a sustained show of authority, but this show of autho rity did not

12 result in Mr. Grant’s seizure because he did not sub mit to the police. Mr. Gr ant was not actually se ized until after he discarded the sa tchel containing the gun, at which point office rs had probable c ause to arrest him. A police show of authority m ay be demonstrated by several factors, inc luding, as relevant he re, an officer’s accusatory questi ons, continue d pressing of the defendant with similar demands or questions when unsatisfied with their answers, and use of language or tone of voice indicating that com pliance with the office r’s requests is require d. See Cart er v. Uni ted St ates, 341 A.3d 1067, 1071 (D.C. 2025). Such a show of authority, howe ver, cannot amount to a seiz ur e where a defendant does not comply or submit to the officer’s requests. Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 254; Hodari D., 499 U. S. at 626. On the contra ry, there must be a n “actual submission” to that show of authority by a defe ndant for there to be a seizure. Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 254; Golden, 248 A.3d a t 9 35. Although Offic er Amarant - West engaged in a show of authority th at may have hindered Mr. Grant’s liberty in som e way, see Torres, 592 U.S. at 311, nothing in the record supports the conclusi on that Mr. Grant submitt ed to that show of polic e authority before offic ers found the gun in his satchel. The interac tion between Mr. Grant and Office r Amarant - West be fore Mr. Grant threw his satchel lasted less than a minute. As Of ficer Amarant - West

13 approached the grou p, Mr. Grant turned, opened his jacket, lif ted his shirt to show his waistband, a nd, without being a sked, told the officer that he did not have a gun. Officer Amara nt - W est resp ond ed with a potentially a ccusatory question: “W hat about in the satche l you got?” While de nying that it contained anything other tha n “weed,” M r. Grant moved the satchel from his front right hip area to his lower back, underneath his ja cket, and continued w alking down the side walk. This movement prompted a more aggre ssive response from Officer Amarant - West, who asked Mr. Grant why he turne d “like that” and to “show [him] the satch el, then.” Officer Amarant - West repeated these same questions as he continued to follow Mr. Gran t down the sidewa lk. This marks a turni ng point in t he interaction. Officer Amara n t - West was no longer simply “a sk[ing] [Mr. Grant] a few ques tions.” Bostick, 501 U.S. a t 434. Instead, he conveyed throug h his repeated requests to se e Mr. Gran t’s satch el and accusatory questi ons about Mr. Grant’s movement t hat he would “ not allow [Mr. Grant] to term i nate the inquiry and de part before satisfying [his] concerns.” Golden, 248 A.3d a t 935 - 36. Officer Amara nt - W est’s show of aut hority continue d as the two m en continued down t he sidewalk. He appears to tap Mr. Gra nt on the arm and repeats “why’d you just do i t like that?” In re sponse, Mr. Grant turned toward O fficer

14 Amarant - West and again de nied having anything in his satchel. Mr. Grant then continued wal king down the sidewal k and Officer Amarant - West followed while shining his flashl ight on him. Unprompted, Mr. Grant aga in denied having anything in his satchel. At th e same ti me, he moved t he satc hel again, shifting it to his right hand. Upon see ing this, Offic er Amarant - West e ngag ed in one final show of authority and told Mr. Grant to “hold on” a nd “hold on for a second.” See Hooks v. United States, 208 A.3d 741, 745 - 46 (D.C. 2019) (conc luding that an office r’s “use of language or tone of voice indicating that complia nce with the officer’s request might be compel led” may be indica tive of a seizure). Mr. Grant, howeve r, did not “hold on”; inste ad, he said, “I’m throwing it, ” and he threw the satchel over a fence into a nearby grassy area. He then walked, and ultimately ran, away. Given Officer Amara nt - W est’s r epeated request s to see hi s satch el, exp lain his movements, and “hold on,” it is c lear to us that Mr. Grant was a target of police interest and the subj ect of a police show of authority. See Carter, 341 A.3d at 1071; Golden, 248 A.3d a t 935 - 36. For this show of a uthority to effect a seizure, howeve r, Mr. Grant needed to submit. Golden, 248 A.3d a t 938; see Hoda ri D., 499 U.S. at 626. Mr. Grant did not subm it. Pridgen v. United Stat es, 134 A.3d 297 (D.C. 2016), helps illustrate this point. There, polic e officers chased the defenda nt into an apartm ent building and drew their

15 guns because they suspec ted t hat he was reaching for a wea pon in his jacke t. Id. at 299. The officers si multaneously ordered the de fendant to “stop, ge t on the ground,” a comman d he ignored. Id. An officer then gra bbed the defendant and force d h im to ground where he was handcuffed. Id. W e held that the d efend ant “was sei zed only when one of the offic ers grabbed him and the offic ers took him to the ground.” Id. at 302. De spite the office rs pointing their guns at the defendant and or dering him to stop, we conclude d that the defendant was not seized beca use he “did not comply” and “ignored the office rs’ requests.” Id.; see also Plummer v. United States, 983 A.2d 323, 333 - 34 (D.C. 2009) (holding that the defe ndant was not seized when police office rs approached him with their guns draw n and ordered him to show his hands, because he did not comply with th eir show of authorit y). Like the defe ndants in Pridgen and Plummer, Mr. Grant did not com ply with Officer Ama rant - West’s requests to s how him the satchel, explain why he moved the satchel be hind his back, or “hold on” be fore throwing the sa tchel. See Pridgen, 134 A.3d at 302; Plummer, 983 A.2d at 334. Mr. Grant engaged with Officer Amarant - West and demonstra ted an understandi ng of the officer’s reque sts, as shown by his repeate d denials of having anythi ng in his satche l. At no point, however, did he sho w Officer Amara nt - West th e satchel or expl ain why he appe ared to be trying to kee p it from the officer’s view. Mr. Grant’s throwing of the sa tchel past Off icer Amaran t - West ’s head an d over a fen ce does not “manifest compl iance”

16 with Officer A marant - West’s requests. See Plummer, 983 A.2d at 331 (quotin g United States v. Waterman, 56 9 F.3d 144, 146 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009)); see also Dalton v. United States, 58 A.3d 100 5, 1012 - 13 (D.C. 2013) (conc luding that the defendant was not seize d “within the mea ning of the Fourth Amendment” when offic ers pursued him, because he continued to fl ee, which “dem onstrate[d] that he had not submitted to their sh ow of authority”). Because M r. Grant did not comply w ith Officer Ama rant - West’s requests, “he did not submit to a uthority and was not seized.” Id. at 334; Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 254; Hodari D., 499 U.S. a t 6 26. Consequent ly, we concl ude that there was no seizure within the m eaning of Fourth Ame ndment during Mr. Grant’s initial encounter, w hich ended when he fle d from police. 2 2 By t he time Mr. Grant was later a rrested, and therefore indisputa bly seized, officers had found th e gun and extended magaz ine in his discarded satche l, giving the m probable cause to arrest him. See Zanders v. United States, 75 A. 3d 244, 249 (D.C. 2013) (holdi ng that the discovery of a gun “ gave the police probable cause to arrest” the defenda nt s); Gam ble v. United States, 901 A.2d 159, 167 (D.C. 2006) (“ Once [police] foun d a gun in appella nt ’ s pocket, they ha d probable cause to a rrest him. ”); Bsharah v. United State s, 646 A.2d 993, 996 (D.C. 1994) (“ We have held on several occasi ons that a police officer who has re li able knowledge tha t a person is in possession of a ha ndgun has probable cause to a rrest that person for the crime of carrying a pistol with out a license (CPWL). ”).

17 2. Mr. Grant’s Counterargume nts Are Unavailing Mr. Grant makes two main point s in support of his a rgument that he was seized by Office r A marant - West be fore discarding his sa tchel: f irst, that he was seized when he “briefly stop ped” to speak with police in respons e to what he claims was an instruction by Officer Amaran t - West to “hold it here, ” and s econd, that the numerous shows of a uthority by Offic er Amarant - West amoun ted to a sei zure even if he failed to submit or c omply with the officer’s dema nds. We are unpersuaded. 3 Mr. Grant’s first argume nt falls short. The tria l court found that, throughout the encounter w ith Officer Amarant - West, Mr. Grant “conti nued to walk a nd began running afte r he threw the satchel. ” Our review of the record does not show that this finding was “cle arly erroneous.” Mayo, 315 A.3d at 616. Offic er Amarant - West testified that whenever the group stopped t o talk or engage wi th him “they were still slightly moving. ” The officers’ BWC footage supports this te stimony. Althoug h Mr. Grant slow ed d ow n when Officer Ama rant - West asked him, “why you’d just do it like that,” the other officer’s BWC foot age shows tha t Mr. Grant wa s continuously moving, albeit slowly, throughout t his part of the in teraction. 3 Mr. Grant also argues that the trial court initially found that he was subject to a Terr y stop before conc luding later that he w as never seized, and t hat we should adopt the tria l court’s initial finding. But w e review legal issues re garding a motion to suppress, like whether a seizure oc curred, de novo. Mayo, 315 A.3d at 616.

18 Further undermini ng Mr. Grant’s argument is t hat the content of the alleg ed “hold i t here” com ment is hard to de cipher from the BWC footage a nd does not appear to be directed at Mr. Grant’s group. T he BWC footage from O fficer Amarant - West and the officer assisting him show s that Offic er Amarant - West’s comment was likely direc ted at his fellow police officer rat her than at Mr. Grant or his group. For exa m ple, in Offic er Amarant - West’s BWC f ootage, h e can b e seen turning his body to t he side, away from M r. Grant’s group, and spea king in a noticeably quie ter voice compare d to when he called “hey, yo” to get the attention of the group mom ents earlier. The a ssisting officer’s B WC footage confirms that Officer Amara nt - W est turned his head awa y from Mr. Grant’s group when makin g the comm ent, suggesting that it was directed toward his fe llow officer. T he indecipherable nature of Officer Ama rant - West’s commen t also cuts against Mr. Grant. It is true that in Officer Amarant - West’s BWC foot age it sounds something like “hold this here. ” In the other office r’s BWC footage, however, it sounds like Officer Amara nt - West says “ c all this in,” a n interpretation that is supported by the fact that the other officer im m ediately used hi s radio to report their location and tha t they we re “making cont act with about four individuals.” A t the suppression he aring, Offic er Amarant - West denied ordering the group to stop w hen he was attempting to get their attention. And, again, Mr. Grant did not in fact “hold it here.” In short, it ap pears more likely that the comment Mr. Grant r elies on w as

19 not directed a t him and not the command to stop that he cl aims. W e therefore cannot conclude, base d on the record, that the trial court’s finding t hat Mr. Grant did not stop was “clearl y erroneous.” Mayo, 315 A.3d at 616. Mr. Grant ’s second contention is tha t Officer Amarant - West’s shows of authority amounte d to a seizure eve n if Mr. Grant di d not submit to them. As part of this argume nt, Mr. Grant rel ies chiefly on ou r decisions in Gol den, Dozier, Carter, and Mayo. Those cases, however, are distinguishable. It is true that in Golden, Dozier, and Ca rter we h eld th at seizu re s had occurred based on shows of authorit y by police. See Gol den, 248 A.3d at 937 - 38; Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 93 3, 947 (D.C. 2019); Carter, 341 A.3d at 1080. The critical difference is t hat the defendants in those cases submitted to the poli ce show of authority. Se e Golden, 248 A.3d at 938 (“ As we have said, a show of author ity by the police does not effect a seizure unless the suspect submits. Mr. Golden did submit.”); Dozier, 341 A.3d at 947 (“[W] e conclude that a p pellant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Am endment by the time he complied with the office rs ’ request to put his hands on the al ley wall so that they could pa t him down. ”); Car ter, 341 A.3d at 1070 (“Unsatisfie d, Officer DelBorrell requested, ‘[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quic k?’ Mr. Carter c omplied.”). Put another wa y, the defendant’s act ual submission in the face of a show of authority is what effect uated

20 the seizur e. See Golden, 248 A.3d at 938; Dozier, 341 A.3d. at 941, 947; Carter, 341 A.3d at 1070, 1080. Although the re were shows of authority by t he police in this case that, had Mr. Grant complied, likely would alter our Fourt h Amendment analysis, the record shows that Mr. Grant did not submit. This failure to submit is a critical dist inction tha t fatally underm ines his asserti on that a seizure occurred before his arrest. See Br endlin, 551 U.S. at 254; Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626; Pope, 313 A.3d at 572. Mr. Grant’s argument appe ars even weaker when we consi der cases like Pridgen and Plummer, where we concluded tha t the defendants w ere not seized even though police offic ers gave direct orders and drew their guns — including, in Pridgen, pointing their guns at Mr. Pridgen. Pridgen, 134 A.3 d at 302; Plummer, 983 A.2d at 333 - 34. Notwit hstanding these force ful shows of authority by police, we maintained t hat, because the defendants did not submit, no seizure occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pridgen, 134 A.3d a t 302; Plummer, 983 A.2d at 333 - 34. Consideri ng that there is no evidence that officers drew or even reached for their gun s during their initial interact ion with Mr. Grant, w e have n o difficulty conc luding that a seizure did not occur when Mr. Grant did not submit to the far less imposing shows of authority present here.

21 Mr. Grant’s reliance on Mayo is similarly misplaced. He asserts that Ma yo illustrate s that a suspe ct’s flight does not preclude this court from fi nding that a seizure occurred prior t o the suspect fleeing. W e fail to see how Mayo support s Mr. Grant’s position. In Mayo, we h eld th at the pol ice sei zed th e defend ant when attempting to tackle him, which resulted in an officer brie fly grabbing his foot before he broke free and kept running. Mayo, 315 A.3d at 619. Although the tackling officer’s at tempt to physically re strain the defe ndant was unsuccessful, we concluded, ba sed on Torres, that the officer’s touc hing of the defendant’s foot amounted to a seizure by physic al force. Id. (citing Torre s, 592 U.S. at 325). Whi le we held that the office rs’ coercive behavior prior to the s eizure reduced the wei ght that the defenda nt’s flight had in our reasonable suspicion ana lysis, id. a t 632, it had no impact on the seizure analysis, see id. at 619. Given the different type of seizure at issue in Mayo, our decision there offers no support for M r. Grant’s argume nt that we must resolv e the fact th at he did not submit to a police show of authority in fa vor of finding that a seizure occurred he re. As we conclude that the police did not seize Mr. Grant prior to his arre st, we decline to c onsider whethe r officers had a reasonable a rticulable suspicion for a seizure when the y engaged with Mr. Grant prior to his flight. See Ware v. Unit ed States, 672 A.2d 557, 560 (D.C. 1996) (expl aining that re asonable suspic ion analysis is only nece ssary if we first conc lude that a defendant wa s seized within the meaning

22 of the Fourth Ame ndment (citing Hawkins v. United State s, 663 A.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C. 1995)). “Evidence coll ected in violatio n of the Fourth Amendment is c o nsidered fruit of the poisonous tre e and generally may not be used by the government to prove a defendant’s guilt. ” Pope, 313 A.3d at 572 (citat ion modified). Because M r. Grant did not comply with O fficer Amarant - West’s show s of authority and was therefore not seized w ithin the mea ning of the Fourth Ame ndment until he was physicall y arrested late r, we hold that the gun a nd ammunitio n he abandoned when he threw the satche l were not the fruit s of a seizu re. Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 629 (conc luding that the coc aine the defenda nt abandoned prior to being seiz ed was not the fruit of a seizure). Conse quently, the tr ial court prope rly denied his moti on to suppress that evidence. See id. III. Conclusion For the foregoing re asons, we affirm the trial c ourt’s order denying Mr. Grant’s motion to suppre ss. So ordered.