Williams v. United States

── Williams v. United States ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CF-0386 BRIAN K. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2023-CF2-002495) (Hon. Errol R. Arthur, Trial Judge) (Submitted December 11, 2025 Decided April 9, 2026) Richard P. Goldberg was on the brief for appellant. Edward R. Martin, Jr., United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Chrisellen R. Kolb, John P. Mannarino, Molly K. Smith, and Daniel J. Lenerz, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee. Before DEAHL, HOWARD, and SHANKER, Associate Judges. SHANKER, Associate Judge: On an April evening in 2023, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Investigators Wilfredo Guzman and Reginald Hildebrandt were patrolling in an unmarked car near 22nd Street Southeast in the District. The officers approached a car parked in an apartment complex lot, with its headlights on and an individual, later identified as appellant Brian K. Williams, in the driver’s seat.  2 The officers initially engaged Mr. Williams in conversation while sitting in their police car but then stepped out of the car and moved closer to Mr. Williams. From this closer position, while shining a flashlight on Mr. Williams, Investigator Guzman saw a rectangular object on the right side of Mr. Williams’s groin area that he thought was too thin to be a cell phone and not a part of Mr. Williams’s “anatomy.” At that point, based on his experience, Investigator Guzman “believed” that Mr. Williams had a gun and intended to frisk him. Investigator Guzman asked Mr. Williams several questions about whether he was in possession of any contraband. After Mr. Williams repeatedly denied having any contraband, Investigator Guzman asked if he could “make sure” the object he saw on Mr. Williams’s right side was not a gun. In response, Mr. Williams told Investigator Guzman not to touch him and fled. He was quickly apprehended by another group of officers who, shortly after, found a gun in Mr. Williams’s pants and arrested him. Prior to his trial for multiple firearms offenses, Mr. Williams moved to suppress all evidence obtained incident to his arrest. The trial court denied Mr. Williams’s motion, concluding that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to seize him. We agree that the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to seize Mr. Williams. Consequently, we conclude that the gun found by police was not the  3 fruit of an illegal seizure and Mr. Williams’s motion to suppress was properly denied. Therefore, with the exception of his conviction for possession of a large capacity magazine feeding device, we affirm Mr. Williams’s convictions. 1 I. Factual and Procedural Background We distill the background below from the trial court’s factual findings and, where necessary, evidence from the suppression hearing. See Mayo v. United States, 315 A.3d 606, 616-17 (D.C. 2024) (en banc). A. Mr. Williams’s Arrest Shortly before 7:00 p.m. on an April evening in 2023, Investigator Guzman and his partner Investigator Hildebrant were patrolling in an unmarked police vehicle in the vicinity of 22nd Street Southeast. Both officers were part of the Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT)