## Facts

- Leon Stamper, Jr. committed a violent carjacking during a dealership test drive, taking a Pontiac Trans Am by force and assaulting the salesman (Cochran).
- Police investigating a stolen vehicle found the Trans Am outside a motel room occupied by Stamper, his girlfriend, and their children.
- Without a warrant, officers entered the motel room, took Stamper into custody, and questioned him; Stamper claimed he had “found” the car.
- A subsequent search of the room uncovered a handgun belonging to Stamper.
- Stamper was transferred to FBI custody; an arrest photograph was used to create a photo array shown to two dealership salesmen.
- Both salesmen identified Stamper from the photo array and later identified him in court as the carjacker.

## Issues

1. Whether the arrest photograph, the photo-array identifications, and the in-court identifications had to be suppressed as fruits of an allegedly unlawful warrantless entry and arrest.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred by applying a four-level “serious bodily injury” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B), rather than at most a two-level “bodily injury” enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A).

## Decision

- The court affirmed Stamper’s convictions.
- The court held that suppression of the photo-array and in-court identifications was not required.
- The court held the record supported a finding of “bodily injury” to the victim but did not support “serious bodily injury.”
- The court vacated the sentence in part and remanded for resentencing consistent with a bodily-injury enhancement.

## Legal Principles

- Identification evidence is not excluded under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine when it is sufficiently attenuated from any asserted Fourth Amendment violation or derives from an independent source, such as witnesses’ observations during the offense.
- A photo array and subsequent in-court identifications are admissible when the procedure is not unduly suggestive and the identifications are reliable.
- Under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3), “bodily injury” and “serious bodily injury” are distinct thresholds; a higher enhancement requires record support establishing the severity of injury and its connection to the offense.
- A sentencing enhancement based on medical consequences requires an adequate factual record; gaps in proof can render a “serious bodily injury” finding clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit left Stamper’s convictions intact because the witnesses’ identifications rested on their direct observations during the carjacking and were not subject to exclusion, but it required resentencing because the evidence established bodily injury rather than serious bodily injury under the Guidelines.


United States v. Stamper, 91 F. App'x 445 (6th Cir. 2004)