NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0668n.06 No. 08-5429 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. M AR VI N J ER OM E JO HN SON , Defendant-

Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: M AR TIN , C OLE, CL AY , C ir c uitJudg e s. R. G UY COLE, JR., C ir cuit Judge . D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt M arv in Je ro me John so n a pp e a ls the denial of hi s motion to s uppress a firea rm seized during a Terry stop on the g round that the police did not have re asonable suspicion to detain and se arc h him. For the r easons be low, we AF F IRM

. I. Ar ound 10 :00 p. m. on Ap ri l 2, 2006 , J oh ns on , his g ir lf ri e nd , an d a fr ie nd we nt to a pu bli c club in Columbi a, Te nnessee called “ Club Karma” that was ser ving liquor that eve n i n g. T he day

was n o table bec ause it wa s Mule Day , an annua l festival in Columbi a known f or drinking and

r e v e l r y. A h i s t o r

y o f v i o l e n c e , i n c l u d i n g f

i r e ar m - r e l a t e d o f f e n s e s , s u r r o u n d e d M u l e D ay. J ohnson and his companions arrived at the c lub in a For d Ex pedition and par ked in the pa rk inglot ne xt to the c lub . T he y

e nte re d Clu

b Ka rm a and re ma ine d ins ide fo r se ve ra l ho ur s. Whil eNo. 08-5429

USA v. J ohnson

- 2 - J ohnson was inside Club Karma , the Columbia Pol i ce De p artment S WAT Team investig ated the pa rk inglot ou tsi de of

Clu b Ka rm a , loo kin g thr ou g h the wi nd ow s of a uto mob ile s f

or vis ibl e fi re arm s. Peeringin the window of the F ord Expedition i n which Johnson arrived, De tective Jeremy Thomas Alsup saw an ope n g y

m bag on the floor of

the front pa ssenger s ea t

. The ba g contained a box of ammunition. Detective Alsup c ould not reca ll the calibe r o f t h e ammunit ion, and could not deter mine if there wer e bullets in the box or if it was e mpty . He relay ed the prese nce of this box of ammunition to t he other

office rs, and that information eventua lly rea ched Detec tive Fr ank Jeffre y Dunca n. At so me po int

a ft e r m idn ig ht, tw o SWA T T e a m of fi c e rs ob se rv e d Joh ns on and his companions leaving Club Ka rma a nd walking towards the F ord Expedi t ion. J ohnson went to the front passe ng er side of the automobi le—wher e the box of ammuni tion was located—and opened the door. The of

fice rs then conf

ronted Johnson and his companions, orderingthem to ke ep their hands visible. J ohnson and his companions complied with this command. Detective Dunc an assisted the office rs, appr oachingJ ohnson and patting him down. As a result, Detec tive Dunca n found a f

irea rm in J ohnson’s belt. SW AT Tea m office rs then ar

rested Johnson. John so n w a s su

bs e qu e ntl y

pr os e c ute d for be ing a c on vic te d fe lon in p os se ssi on of a fi re arm . J ohnson moved to suppr ess the firea rm as the fruit of an illeg al sea rch, but the district c ourt denied his motion afte r a suppression hear ing. Johnson then entere d a conditional guilty plea maintaining his ability to appea l the district court’s de nial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenc ed J ohnson to forty -eig ht months of imprisonment. J ohnson timely appea led the denia l of his motion. II.No. 08-5429

USA v. J ohnson

- 3 - I n e xa mi n in g th e d e n ia l o f a mo ti o n to s u p p r e s s , w e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s f in dings of fac t for cle ar e rror

and its c onclusions of law de novo. United States v. Foster , 376 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2004). We must view the evidence “in the l ight most likely to support the district court’s decision.” United States v. Navarro-Camac ho , 186 F.3d 701, 705 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (interna l quotation

o mitted). Particularly

in the context of Te rry

stops, we g ive “due weig ht” to the district court’s infere nces, a s it “is at an instit utional a dvantag e, having observe d the testimony of the witnesse s and understandinglocal conditions.” Foster , 376 F.3d at 583 (internal quotation omitted). We have ar t i culated a two-pa rt proce ss for eva luating the constitutionalit y of Te rry sto ps : We first determine “ whether there was a proper basis for the stop” ; then, if the stop was prope r, we assess “whether

the deg ree of i n t ru s ion was re asonably related in scope to the situation at hand.” Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ru the rs , 458 F.3d 459, 464 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (inter nal quotations and citations omitted). A. Basis f

or the Stop A Te rry stop is a “brie f investigatory stop[ ] of persons,” Un ite d S tates v . Ca mb e ll , 549 F.3d 364, 370 (6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation omit ted), that is justified under the Four th Amendment wh e n a n o ff ic e r ha s re a so na

ble su sp ic ion “ to co nc lud e in lig ht of his e xpe ri e nc e that c ri min a l a c tiv ity

ma y b e a f o o t.” T erry v . O hio , 3 92 U. S. 1 , 3 0 ( 19 68 ). We l oo k to the hy po the tic a l r e a so na

ble office r’s a ssessment of a s it u ation, beca

use a Te rry

sto p r e qu ir e s a

“ pa rt ic ula ri zed and ob je c tiv e ba sis for suspec ting the pa

rticular pe rson of c riminal activity .” Cam be ll , 5 4 9 F

. 3 d a t 3 71 (interna l quotation omitt ed). We deter mine whether rea sonable suspi cion ex ists based on the totality of the circ umstances. Un ite d S

tates v . S mi th , 263 F.3d 571, 588 ( 6th Cir. 2001).No. 08-5429

USA v. J ohnson

- 4 - Her e, the g overnme nt a

rg ues that Tenne ssee Code section 39-17-1305 (2006) pr ovided the of fi c e rs w i t h r e a s o n a

b l e s u s p i c i o nt o s t o p Jo h n s o n . T h atl a w p r o h i b i t e d

“ a p e r s o n[f

r om] possess[i ng ] a firea

rm within the confines of a building ope n to the public wher e liquor, wine or other a lcoholic beve rag es . . . are serve d for on pr emises consumption.” Tenn. Code § 39-17-1305 (2006). Be ca

u s e Jo h n s o nd o e s n o t c o n te s t t h a t C lu b K ar ma w a s a p u b li c e s ta b li s h me n t s e r

v ing alcohol, the only

question is whether the police had rea sonable suspicion to believe J ohnson possessed a f

irea rm in Club Karma. The re levant fa cts are : (1) the pr esenc e of a b o x of ammunition in the automobile; (2) the loc a tio n o f t

he a uto mob ile in t

he pa rk inglot of a pu bli c e sta bli sh me nt se rv ing a lc oh ol; (3 ) t he tim e of da y ; and (4 ) t he his tor y of a lc oh ol c on sumpt ion and fi re arm -r e late d v iol e nc e on Mu le Da y . Wh ile

a time of day or dang erous location cannot alone provide rea sonable suspicion, “police of fice rs ar e not require d to ignor e the r eleva nt char acte ristics of a location [ or time] in deter mining whe ther the circ umstances are sufficie ntly suspicious to war rant further

investigation.” United St ates v. Pe arce , 531 F.3d 374, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation omit ted). Mo re ov e r, we have no te d th a t th e pr e se nc e of a bo x o f a mmunit ion in a n a uto mob ile —a lbe it confirme d throug h inquiry —is adequate t o provide reasona ble s uspicion that the owner possesses a fire arm. See U

nited States v. Isham , 501 F.2d 989, 990-91 (6th Cir. 1974). I n Isham , an ar restee asked to lock his automobile bef ore police office rs transpor ted him to jail. Id. at 990. Monitoring the ar restee , the offic ers sa

w a box of ammunition on the front seat and asked the ar restee if he ha d a gun. Id. He sa id that he did. Id. Analy zing this ex chang e, we noted: “The police suspicion about

a we apon (ba sed on the plain viewof the ammuniti on) w as . . . turned into something more thanNo. 08-5429

USA v. J ohnson

- 5 - pr ob ab le c au se when [the arr estee ] admit ted that he ha d a [firea rm].” Id. at 991 (empha sis added);

ac c or d U nite d S tates v . M e ad ows , 571 F.3d 131, 142 ( 1st Cir. 2009) (“We think it uncontroversial that the disco v er y o f ammunition—but not a gun—in the car from which a

suspect fle d could . . . lead a n office r to rea sonably

suspect that the f

leeingsuspect p o s s essed the gun that went with the ammunition.”). J oh n s o np ro t es t s , ar gu i n g t h at t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s d i d n o twa rr an ta b el i ef

t h at h e w as behaving in a su sp ic iou s o r d ang e ro us mann e r. John so n o bje c ts t o th e a de qu a c y of the fa c tor s h e re , in particula r t he backg round of Mule Day and the connec tion betwee n the box of ammunition and the fir e ar m. H o w e v e r , “ in d iv id

u a l f a c to r s , ta k e na s a w h o le , [m ay ] g iv e r is e to r e a s o n a b le suspicion, even if eac h individual factor is e ntirely consistent with innocen t b eh av i or whe n examined separ ately .” Sm ith , 263 F.3d at 588. Furthe rmore, the fac tors combined nee ded only provide the office rs with re as on ab le su sp ic ion that John so n vio late d th e pr oh ibi tio n o n c arr yinga fi re arm int o an esta blishment serving alcohol. This level of suspicion “is s at i s fi ed b y a likelihood of cr iminal activity less than proba

ble ca use, and falls considera

bly short of satisfying a

preponde ranc e of the evidenc e standa

rd.” Cam be ll , 549 F.3d at 370-71 (interna l quotation omit ted). G i v e n t h i s s t a n d a r d , w e fi nd

that th e c ir c ums tanc e s h e re pr ov ide d th e of fi c e rs wi th r e a so na

ble suspicion to believe Johnson carried a firea rm in t o Club Karma, in violation of Tenne ssee Code section 39-17- 1305 (2006). B. Degre e of Intrusion The sec ond half of our Te rry sto p a na ly sis re qu ir e s u s to de te rm ine wh e the r t he of fi c e rs ’ intrusion “was re asonably related in scope to t h e s i t u at i o n at hand.” Car uth e rs , 458 F.3d at 464No. 08-5429

USA v. J ohnson

- 6 - (interna l quotation omitted). We do so “by examining the re asonable ness of the of ficials’ c onduct g iven their suspicions and the sur rounding circ umstances.” Id. (interna l quotation omit ted). D u ring a T

e rry stop, an offic er ma

y perf orm “a rea sonable sea

rch f or we apons for

the protec tion of the police office r.” Te rry , 392 U.S. at 27. This searc h must be based on the of fice r’s “belie[f] that he is dealing with an armed and da ng erous individual.” Id. The off icer , howeve r, nee d not be “a bsolutely cer tain that the individual is armed; the is sue is whether a re asonably

prudent man in the circ umstances would be war rante d in the belief that his sa fety or that of others w as in dang er.” Id. Be cause the statutory violation at issue involves a fire arm, t h e s o l e q uestion is whether a “re asonably

prudent man in the circumstances” would consider Johnson dang erous. Id. We have found the be lieved prese nce of a firea rm ce ntral in permitting a protec tive sear ch of a

suspect due to a re asonable office r’s fe ar of dang er. See U

nited States v. Paulino , 935 F.2d 739, 747 ( 6th Cir. 1991), supersede d by statute on other grounds , U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1. The Supreme Court has a g ree d that “dang er may arise from t he possi ble pre sence of we apons in the ar ea surroundinga suspec t.” Michigan v. Long , 4 63 U. S. 1 03 2, 10 49 (1 98 3) ; see also id. a t 1 0 4 8 ( “ [W] e have a lso e xpre ssl y

re c og nize d that susp e c ts may inj ur e po lic e of fi c e rs and oth e rs by vir tue of the ir

acc ess to wea

pons . . . .”). This c onclusion is further justified whe n the hour is late a nd alcohol may be involved. See id. at 1050. Given the suspe cted possession of a firea rm and the c ircumstance s

ou tsi de Clu

b K arm a that ni g ht, a reas on able i nd ivi du a l w ou ld h a ve fe are d f or his sa fe ty

in confr onting Johnson.No. 08-5429

USA v. J ohnson

- 7 - Th os e same sa fe ty c on sid e ratio ns re nd e r De te c tiv e Du nc an’ s a c tio n— fr isk ing wi tho ut f ir st asking questions—rea sonable. Se e Car uth e rs , 458 F.3d a t 469 (“[T]he stop was weapons- related,

so it w a s r e a so na

ble fo r [the of

fi c e r] t o s e c ur e [the de fe nd ant] f or sa fe ty re a so ns . . . . ” ); United Sta te s v . G ar za , 10 F.3d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Courts have ge nera lly upheld law e nforc ement actions take n during investigatory stops, including making such stops with weapons dr awn, whe n those ac tions are r easona bl y n ece ssary

for the pr otection of the of fice rs.” ( internal quotations omi tte d) ); c

f. Isham , 501 F.2d at 990-91 (police questioned defe ndant in custody about pre sence of firea rm afte r finding box of ammunition). B e c a us e the of fi c e rs ha d r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

to b e lie ve John so n w a s arm e d a nd da ng e ro us , they could p ro p er l y p at h i m down for w eapons. Te rry , 392 U.S. at 27. The off icer s thus did not violate J ohnson’s Four

th Amendment rig hts, so the firea rm nee d not be suppresse d. See P earce , 531 F.3d at 383-84. III . For t h e fo re go ing r easons, we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of John so n’ s mo tio n to

su pp re ss.