In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 00-3174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LORENZO L. MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 99 CR 10077--Joe B. McDade, Chief Judge.

Argued FEBRUARY 27, 2001--Decided July 11, 2001

 Before COFFEY, RIPPLE and EVANS, Circuit

Judges.

 COFFEY, Circuit Judge. On October 19,

1999, a criminal complaint was filed in

the United States District Court for the

Central Division of Illinois charging

Lorenzo L. Mitchell with being a felon in

possession of a firearm, in violation of

18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1). On November 10,

1999, the defendant filed a motion to

suppress the handgun in question,

alleging that the officers illegally

discovered his firearm. On January 25,

2000, the district court denied the

motion to suppress, concluding that under

the totality of the circumstances the

officers’ actions in taking possession of

the defendant’s firearm were legal.

Mitchell was arraigned, entered a plea of

not guilty, and waived his right to a

jury and his right to the appointment of

counsel./1 After a bench trial,

Mitchell was found guilty on March 27,

2000, and sentenced to 46 months’

imprisonment, three years’ supervised

release, and a $100 special assessment.

Mitchell appeals the denial of his motion

to suppress. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

 At approximately 9:49 p.m., on October

5, 1999, Peoria Police Officers Jeff

Wilson and Tim Moore responded to a call
on the police radio of "shots fired"

within the 1700 block of Bigelow Street

in Peoria, Illinois, a known gang

area./2 The police dispatcher provided

the purported description of the suspect:

a black male walking north on Bigelow

Street toward Nebraska Street. The

officers radioed that they would respond,

and it took them only 90 seconds to

arrive at the reported area of shots

fired.

 Once in the area, the officers observed

five individuals in the immediate

vicinity; three female children were

standing on the front porch of 1715

Bigelow and two men were on the sidewalk

in front of 1709 Bigelow./3 The two

men, Jason Bennett and Lorenzo Mitchell,

were both known to the police officers as

a result of their previous criminal

activities.

 Jason Bennett, one of the most dangerous

gang members in Peoria, was the leader of

the Bennett brothers who ran the "Bigelow

Boys." According to Officer Wilson’s

testimony, "it came to be well-known in

the department that where there was Jason

[Bennett], there was usually a gun close

by."

 Officer Moore was very familiar with the

defendant, as Mitchell was a suspect in a

prior shooting incident Moore

investigated. Also, Mitchell had a

reputation for being associated with guns

and violence.

 When the officers saw the two men, they

stopped their car and asked Bennett and

Mitchell if they had heard any gunfire.

Both men responded in the negative. Not

wanting to turn their backs on these two

dangerous men, Officer Moore ordered

Bennett and Mitchell to "come over here

to the front of the car and put your

hands on the car, because we’re going to

pat you down for weapons." Bennett

immediately complied with the order, but

Mitchell refused and continued to stand

in the same area and inquired as to what

he had done wrong. Not only did Mitchell

refuse to consent to the pat-down, he

proceeded to place his hands in his coat

pockets, raising the suspicion that he

might be armed. After Mitchell placed his

hands in his coat pockets, Officer Moore

withdrew his firearm, pointed it at

Mitchell, and again ordered him to go
over to the squad car to submit to a patdown search.

 Although Mitchell took his hands out of

his pockets and started to walk over to

the squad car, the officers were still

suspicious and Officer Moore kept his gun

trained on Mitchell. The suspect kept

looking to the left and right and asking

what the problem was. As Mitchell

approached the police car, he placed his

hands on the hood but immediately

withdrew them. Mitchell then proceeded to

move to his left (in the direction of

Officer Moore). Officer Moore, unsure of

"whether or not [Mitchell] was going to

try to rush" him, started to put his gun

away./4 It was at this moment that

Mitchell took off running.

 Although Officer Moore was able to grab

Mitchell’s coat, the suspect was able to

slip out of his coat and continue his

flight. As Mitchell ran, both officers

testified that they were able to observe

that the suspect was running with his

hand on the front of his waist, leading

them to believe that the suspect was

armed. According to Officer Wilson’s

testimony:

From past experience, [the fact that

Mitchell’s hand was on the front of his

waist] either signified that, one,

they’re holding on to something in their

waistband, be it a gun or drugs. As I

stated in my report, I strongly felt in

this case, considering the shots fired

call we had received and Mr. Mitchell’s

action, that it was a--it was a gun in

his case.

 After a short chase, Officer Wilson was

able to shove Mitchell to the ground. As

Mitchell fell to the ground, Officer

Wilson observed a pistol in Mitchell’s

right hand and saw him lose control of

the gun as Mitchell hit the ground. As

Officer Wilson moved in to arrest the

suspect, Mitchell punched Wilson in the

face. After a brief struggle, Officer

Moore caught up with the two men and

assisted his partner in restraining and

cuffing Mitchell. Officer Moore recovered

a loaded Colt .22 caliber semi-automatic

pistol from the area.

 After Mitchell was charged with being a

felon in possession of a firearm, he

filed a motion to suppress the weapon on
the grounds that the officers did not

have the legal authority to order him to

submit to a pat-down search. After a

hearing on the motion to suppress, the

trial judge denied the motion and

concluded that under the totality of the

circumstances the officers had the

authority to search Mitchell. As

mentioned above, the defendant waived his

right to a jury trial and his right to an

attorney, and was found guilty on March

27, 2000. The defendant appeals the

denial of his motion to suppress.

II. ANALYSIS

 In reviewing the district judge’s

decision to deny a motion to suppress,

this court reviews questions of law de

novo and questions of fact for clear

error. United States v. Williams, 209

F.3d 940, 942 (7th Cir. 2000). Therefore,

"we review de novo the ultimate

conclusion that the police did not have

reasonable suspicion to stop or search

the individual, but we review all

findings of historical fact and

credibility determinations deferentially,

under the clear error standard." United

States v. Johnson, 170 F.3d 708, 712-13

(7th Cir. 1999). In this case, the

defendant is not challenging the district

court’s factual findings or any

credibility determinations. Rather, this

case turns on the legal question of

whether the officers had sufficient

information to order Mitchell to place

his hands on the hood of the police car

and submit to a pat-down search.

 In considering whether the police had

sufficient cause to order the defendant

to submit to a pat-down search, it is

most important that we understand the

facts and knowledge the officers had at

that time. Initially, the officers had

been informed, via the police dispatcher,

that an anonymous phone caller had

reported shots being fired in the

vicinity of the 1700 block of Bigelow

Street and that the suspect involved was

a black male walking north on Bigelow

Street toward Nebraska Street. The two

experienced officers arrived at the scene

some 90 seconds after receiving the

report. Once at the scene, the officers

encountered two black men on Bigelow.

Importantly, according to the officers’

testimony, these were the only adult

males in the area and both men were known
gang members. Furthermore, based on the

officers’ knowledge and prior experience,

both men were considered to be very

dangerous.

 As discussed previously, Jason Bennett,

one of the most dangerous gang members in

Peoria, was the leader of the Bennett

brothers who ran the Bigelow Boys.

According to Officer Wilson’s testimony,

"it came to be well-known in the

department that where there was Jason,

there was usually a gun close by."

 It is also important to note that

Officer Moore was very familiar with the

defendant’s violent and illicit past, as

Mitchell was a suspect in a prior

shooting incident Moore investigated.

Also, Mitchell had a "propensity to carry

guns" and was considered dangerous.

 Immediately suspicious, especially given

the known history of these two men, the

officers asked if either of them had

heard any shots fired. They both

responded in the negative. Officer Moore

then ordered the two men to submit to

pat-down searches./5 According to

Officer Wilson,

You get a call of shots fired in the

area. This is an area that we know

that’s--that’s absolutely 100-percent

good for those types of calls, that there

are violent shots fired and calls that

come in in that neighborhood, either be

it drive-bys or just random acts of

shooting at each other in the street.

Again, I know Jason Bennett very well.

Jason Bennett again is part of the

Bigelow Boys street faction of the

Gangster Disciples. Jason Bennett is

considered by this Department to be a

shooter and has proven that fact by his

own actions. For me to know Jason and to

go into that neighborhood with a shots

fired call received and to simply drive

past him, walk past him, whatever the

case may be, without encountering him,

it’s--that’s asking for a bullet in the

back. He’s just simply not a person that

you trust at all.

 In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 23-24

(1968), the United States Supreme Court

recognized the importance of allowing

police officers some leeway under the

Fourth Amendment in order that they might

protect themselves and others. According
to Terry:

We are now concerned with more than the

governmental interest in investigating

crime; in addition, there is the more

immediate interest of the police officer

in taking steps to assure himself that

the person with whom he is dealing is not

armed with a weapon that could

unexpectedly and fatally be used against

him. Certainly it would be unreasonable

to require that police officers take

unnecessary risks in the performance of

their duties.

Id. at 23. The Court went on to conclude

that given the dangers police officers

face everyday,

we cannot blind ourselves to the need for

law enforcement officers to protect

themselves and other prospective victims

of violence in situations where they may

lack probable cause for an arrest. When

an officer is justified in believing that

the individual whose suspicious behavior

he is investigating at close range is

armed and presently dangerous to the

officer or to others, it would appear to

be clearly unreasonable to deny the

officer the power to take necessary

measures to determine whether the person

is in fact carrying a weapon and to

neutralize the threat of physical harm.

Id. at 24.

 Finally, the Court noted that "a

perfectly reasonable apprehension of

danger may arise long before the officer

is possessed of adequate information to

justify taking a person into custody for

the purpose of prosecuting him for a

crime." Id. at 26-27. This is exactly

what happened in this case. The officers,

upon their arrival at the scene, clearly

did not have sufficient information to

immediately arrest Mitchell for being a

felon in possession. However, we are of

the opinion that the combination of a

report of shots being fired, the rapid

response time of the officers

(approximately 90 seconds), the fact that

Mitchell matched the general (albeit

limited) description of the suspect, the

fact that Mitchell and Bennett were known

to the officers as gang members and

dangerous men, the fact that both men had

a propensity to carry weapons, that they

were the only adult black males that
could be seen on the 1700 block of

Bigelow, that the 1700 block of Bigelow

was a known "hot-spot" for criminal

activity, and that they both denied

hearing shots fired, gave both officers a

"perfectly reasonable apprehension of

danger."/6 Accordingly, under the

totality of the circumstances we hold

that the two officers had a sufficient

legal basis to conduct an investigation,

including a Terry stop.

 We note that such a conclusion is

consistent with prior cases decided by

this court. For example, in United States

v. Brown, 188 F.3d 860, 865 (7th Cir.

1999), this court stated:

 Here the totality of the circumstances

also included Brown’s demeanor, which was

more nervous than one would expect in a

routine traffic stop, and his failure to

meet Wildauer’s gaze. Nervousness or

refusal to make eye contact alone will

not justify a Terry stop and pat- down,

see United States v. Jerez, 108 F.3d 684,

694 (7th Cir. 1997), but such behavior

may be considered as a factor in the

totality of circumstances. See Finke, 85

F.3d at 1282 n. 4 (citing cases). The

totality of the circumstances also

included Brown’s repeatedly glancing back

towards the car in question while its

occupants rolled down the tinted windows.

Brown gives us no reason to doubt these

factual findings. Neither does he suggest

any other innocent explanation which

might plausibly account for his excessive

nervousness.

 Finally, the exchange took place in a

high crime area where there had been drug

activity, shootings, and gang violence.

Although "’the fact that appellant was in

a neighborhood frequented by drug users,

standing alone, is not a basis for

concluding that appellant himself was

engaged in criminal conduct,’ " Jerez,

108 F.3d at 694 (quoting Brown v. Texas,

443 U.S. 47, 52, 99 S. Ct. 2637, 61 L.

Ed.2d 357 (1979)), "courts may consider

the defendant’s presence in a high crime

area as part of the totality of

circumstances confronting the officer at

the time of the stop." Quinn, 83 F.3d at

922 n. 2. The police do not have carte

blanche to pat down anyone in a dangerous

neighborhood, but Brown had been stopped

for speeding while driving a car under

surveillance for drug trafficking and
redolent of marijuana smoke. He was

excessively nervous, refusing to meet the

officer’s gaze and repeatedly glancing

back towards the car as his passengers

rolled down its tinted windows--and he

was in a bad neighborhood. Against this

background, Officer Wildauer had a

reasonable suspicion that Brown might be

armed and dangerous which was sufficient

to support his decision to conduct the

pat-down search.

[Emphasis added].

 Mitchell’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

/1 The trial judge appointed stand-by counsel.

/2 Jeff Wilson is a 12-year veteran with experience

in both the Street Crimes Unit and as a patrol

officer. Tim Moore has been a police officer for

over 10 years and has worked as a patrol officer,

a walking beat officer in the city’s housing

projects, a vice and narcotics officer, a field

training officer, and in the Street Crimes Unit.

On this particular night, both men were assigned

to the Street Crimes Unit.

/3 A gang called the Bigelow Boys (an offshoot of

the Gangster Disciples) controlled this area and

the five leaders of the Bigelow Boys (the Bennett

brothers) resided at 1715 Bigelow Street, their

grandmother’s house. In fact, there were more

police calls to 1715 Bigelow Street than any

other address in the area.

/4 Officer Moore stated that he started to put his

gun away when he suspected Mitchell might charge

him because he would not be justified in shooting

the suspect and he would be unable to physically

restrain him with a gun in his (Officer Moore’s)

hands.

/5 We, like the district court, are concerned with

Officer Moore’s statement that he would have

patted down any black male in the vicinity.

Obviously, such conduct is in violation of the

Fourth Amendment and we hope that AUSA Tate

Chambers’ promise to the trial judge that Officer

Moore would undergo additional training will be

carried out. Because we are confident that race

was not a controlling factor in the officers’

decision to stop the two men, we need not address

Officer Moore’s comments any further.

/6 The fact that Officer Moore withdrew his firearm
from his holster in order to conduct the Terry

stop does not necessarily transform Mitchell’s

detention into an arrest. United States v. Harley, 682 F.2d 398, 402 (2d Cir. 1982); United

States v. Trullo, 809 F.2d 108, 113 (1st Cir.

1987); United States v. Lane, 909 F.2d 895, 899

(6th Cir. 1990); United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza,

981 F.2d 1216, 1221 (11th Cir. 1993); Foote v.

Dunagan, 33 F.3d 445, 449 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1994).