T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay19,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 4175 v . ( D. C. 2 : 0 4 - CR- 6 1 6 - P GC) G I L B E R T T O D D E L L I S, ( D . U t ah)

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re KELLY , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thout o ra l ar g u m e n t. A p p e l l a n tw a s c h a r g e d w i th o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a m m u n i t i o n b y a c o n v icte d fe lo n , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). H e filed a m o tio n to s uppr es s t he amm uni t i on evi dence . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d a hea r i ng on t he- 2-

m ot i on and deni ed i t . A ppel l antthen ent er ed a c ondi t i onal pl ea of gui l tythat p re s e rv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ru lin g o n h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . A ppel l antw as s ent ence d t o t hi r t y - s even mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H e appe al s the d istric t co u rt’s s u p p re ss io n ru lin g , co n tes tin g th a t th e re w a s n o re a so n a b le s us pi ci on t o s uppor thi s det ent i on orhi s s ubj ect i on t o a Terry fr i s k. W hen r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s bas ed on an a l l egat i on t hatoffi cer s vi ol at ed a de fenda nt ’ s Four th A m endmentr i ght s , w e cons i derthe to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s a n d v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to the g o v ern m en t, ac ce p ti n g the d istri ct co u rt ’s find ing s o f fac ts un less theyare c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Uni t ed Stat es v. G ay , 2 4 0 F . 3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 5 -26 (10 th C ir . 2001) . “H ow ever , t he ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of the r eas onabl enes s underthe Four t h A m endmenti s r evi ew ed de novo. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lang , 81 F. 3d 955, 9 6 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). O n A u g u st 24 , 2 0 0 4 , o fficers w ere co n d u cti n g su rve il lanc e n ea r a nei ghbor hood conveni ence s t or e, havi ng r ece i ved numer ous anonym ous compl ai nt s t hr ough a drug t i p hot l i ne abouti ndi vi dual s pos s i bl ybuy i ng and s el l i ng drugs i n t he ar ea. T he off i cer s obs erved a c arpul l i nt o the conve ni ence s t or e parki ng l ot , butno one exi t ed the vehi cl e. A n i ndi vi dual then appr oache d th e c a r, lea n e d th ro u g h th e w in d o w to c o n v e rse w ith th e o c c u p a n ts, a n d lef t. T h is s cena r i o w as r epea t ed. A ppel l antand the conve ni ence s t or e ow nerthen ap p roa ch ed the c ar; th e o w n er told th e c ar’s o cc u p an ts th at th eyco u ld n o t park- 3-

t her e, and A ppel l ant , w ho evi dent l yr ecogni zed the dr i ver , as ked fora r i de. A tt hi s t i m e the pol i ce offi cer s appr oache d the parked vehi cl e and or der ed t he thr ee oc cupant s t o s how t hei rhands . T he dr i verand fr onts eatpas s enger compl i ed, butt he bac k s eatpas s engerdi d not . A s the bac k s eatpas s enger r eac hed dow n bel ow hi s l eg, t he off i cerdr ew hi s ow n w eapon a nd or der ed A ppel l antand the conve ni ence s t or e ow ner( w ho w er e s t i l l s t andi ng nearthe vehi cl e) t o getdow n on t he gr ound. A not heroffi cerarr i ved on the s cene and, havi ng r ecogni zed A ppel l antfr om a pr i ordrug arr es t , focus ed hi s at t ent i on on hi m . A ppel l antatt empt ed t o r i s e up fr om t he gr ound and r epea t edl ys t at ed thathe had done nothi ng w r ong. T he offi cerconduct ed a f

r i s k of both A ppel l antand the s t or e ow ner . W hi l e s ear chi ng A ppel l ant , t he off

i cerfel ts om ethi ng har d i n hi s pantpocket , w hi ch he be l i eved w as a magazi ne fora gun. T he off i certhen handc uffe d A ppel l ant , chec ked the pant ’ s pocket , and s ei zed the gun magazi ne. A ppel l antar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng hi s s uppr es s i on m o tio n b e c a u se h e c o n ten d s th a t th e o ffice rs h a d n o re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to det ai n hi m . T he r ecor d r efl ect s : ( 1) ther e w er e numer ous ci t i zen- i nform ant compl ai nt s r egar di ng hand- t o- hand drug tr ans act i ons i n a s peci fi ed ar ea; ( 2) A ppel l antw as obs erved appr oachi ng a s us pi ci ous carand t al ki ng t o an occ upant i m m edi at el yaft ert w o i ndi vi dual s had s epar at el yappr oache d the s ame car engage d i n conductcons i s t entw i th a hand- t o- hand drug tr ans act i on; and ( 3) one- 4-

of the off

i cer s knew t hatA ppel l anthad a c r i m i nal r ecor d, i ncl udi ng an arr es tfor drug pos s es s i on. A b rie f d e ten tio n is p e rm iss ib le if b a se d o n “ re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to bel i eve thatcr i m i nal act i vi t ym aybe afoot . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Q u in ta n a -G a rc ia , 3 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e re c o rd in th is c a s e s u p p o rt s th is b e lie f. A p p e llan t als o a rg u e s th a t th e o ffice rs h a d n o re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to j us t i fya fr i s k forw eapons . D ur i ng the cour s e of a n i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on, “an offi cerm ayconducta pat - dow n s ear ch ( or‘ fr i s k’ ) i f he ors he ‘ harbor s an arti cu lable a n d rea so n ab le su sp ici o n that the p erso n is arm ed an d d an g ero u s. ’” Uni t ed Stat es v. His haw , 235 F. 3d 565, 570 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng Uni t ed S ta tes v . D a v is , 9 4 F . 3 d 1 4 6 5 , 1 4 6 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )). In th is case , the o fficer’s s us pi ci on t hatA ppel l antw as i nvol ved i n drug act i vi ty , coupl ed w i th hi s noncompl i ance w i t h the off i cer s ’ comm ands t o l i e on the gr ound, s uppor t ed a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hathe w as arm ed and da nger ous . R eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hat an i ndi vi dual i s i nvol ved i n drug deal i ng, s t andi ng al one, m ayj us t i fya fr i s k for w ea p o n s b ec au se “ [t]he crim es a b o u t w h ich [ the o fficer] w as c o n ce rne d are t ypi cal l yas s oci at ed w i t h s om e s or tof w eapon . . . . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 3 6 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); s ee als o His haw , 2 3 5 F .3 d a t 5 7 0 -7 1 . G i ven the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , es peci al l yi n l i ghtof A ppel l ant ’ s nonc o m p lian c e in a c h a rg e d situ a tio n , w e d e ter m in e th a t th e o ffice rs h a d re a so n a b le- 5-

suspi ci on t o co nd uct a fr i sk for w eapo ns. W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the br i efs of A ppel l antand A ppel l ee, the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i on, and the r ecor d on appea l . W e ar e i n acc or d w i th the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of A ppel l ant ’ s s uppr es s i on m ot i on, and w e c o n se q u e n tly AF F I RM t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s J une 30, 2005, s ent ence . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge