F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 27 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1127 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 80 02 3 C R-DTKH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ANTHONYH. LINDSEY, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 27, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. ED MON DS ON , C hief Judge: A nth ony H . L ind se y

( “ D ef en dant” ) ap pe al s hi s c onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e of 300 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t f

or ( 1) be ing af

el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m , a nd ( 2)2

be ing af el on i n po sse ssi on o f one or m or e ro unds of

a m m uni tio n, both invio la tio n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ) an d t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). D ef en dant c la im s se ve ra l vi ola tio ns o f his F ourth, F if th, a nd S ixth A m en dm en t rights for alleged err ors at trial and sentencing. Be cause no reversible er ror has b e e n s h o w n , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACKGROUND

InF eb ru ar

y 200 4, auth or iti es r ec ei ve d a911 c al l f ro m ape rs on i de nti fy ing him se lf a s “ D av is” a nd r ep ortin g th at f our bla ck m al es w er e loa din g guns and putti ng them

in a large white SUV . The S UVwa s parked behind a Mobi l gas sta tio n a cr oss f

ro m abr an chof

W ac hovi a Bank. D et ec tiv e Ja son O . H oust on (“ Houston”) and other m em bers of the W est Palm

Beac h Police D epartm ent had be eninv es tig at ing ar ec en t se ri es of a rm ed bank r obbe ri es in the a re a. T he ro bbe ri es inv olv ed

thr ee to fo ur

bla ck m al es w ho h ad

e nte re d banks w itha ssa

ult ty pe we apons and who drove large S UV -ty pe vehicles. T he police also had know le dge of

tw o r obbe ri es c om

m itt ed by tw o bl ac k m al es usi ng h an dgun s inthe park ing lot

of thi s ve ry sa m e br an chof

W ac hovi a Bank.3

Be lie vin g th at

a nothe r ro bbe ry

w as im m ine nt, se ve ra l of

fi ce rs - - inc lud ing Hou st on an d S erg ean t M art in Tiern ey (“ Tierne y ”) -- r es po nd edto th e 9 11 cal l. T ie rn ey , the f

ir st o ff ic er on the sc en e, obs er

ve d aw hit e Fo rd

E xc ur sio n ( a larg e SU V ) park ed

be hin d th e ga s st at ion . A s T ie rn ey pul le d in to and c ir cl ed

the station, he observed the SUVpull ou t of its parked location. Tie rney then radioed the other officer s that the vehicle was on the m ove. But instead of leaving the gas sta tio n, the S U V pul le d aro und to a ga s pu m p and s top pe d. T he n, f

our bla ck m en , inc lud ing D ef

en dant, e xit ed

the ve hic le . T hr ee of

the m en w al ke d to w ar d th e station’s convenience store, and the fourth opened th e hood of the vehicle. Se rg eant T ie rn ey

the n e xit ed

his ve hic le a nd dre whis sho tgun w hil e y el lin g at the m ento ge t onthe gr ound . O the r of fi ce rs c onve rg ed

on the ga s st at iona nd se cure d th e sc en e. T ur

nin g hi s a tte nti on t o D ef

en dant, w ho h ad

r ea ch ed the doo r of the convenience store, T ierney ordered D efendant to lay down, to w hich D ef en dant r es pond ed , “ Wha t di d I do?” A ft er f ive to ei ght

se co nds, D ef

en dant subm itt ed to T ie rn ey ’ s r eque st. O ff ic er s th enhandc uf

fe d e ac h of

the f our m ena nd pla ce d th em

in pol ic e ve hic le s. T he n, of fi ce rs obs er

ve d an arm or ed

ve hic le pu ll in g u p t o t he ba nkan d g ua rd s l eav in g t he ba nkcarry in g s at ch el s o f m on ey . Ac cording to Tierney , e m ploy ees of the gas station told officer s that the SUVhad be enpark ed

be hin d th e bui ldi ng f

or tw o ho ur s.Two conditi ons of Defenda nt’s parole wer e (1) that he not pos sess a fir ear m and (2) tha

t he not 1 a sso c iate kn ow ing ly

wi th c onvic te d f

e lon s. 4 Po li ce t he n e xa m in edth e SUV to en su re t ha t n o a rm edpe rs on s wer e in si de . Af ter identify ing each of the m en and checking their backgroun ds, the office rs le ar ne d th at a ll fo ur w er e co nvi ct ed

f el ons. T hr ee of

the m en , how ev er , ha d no outst anding warrants and w ere relea sed at the scene. Police a lso dis covered that D ef en dant w as the r eg ist er ed ow ne r of the ve hic le . B ec au se D ef en dant w as on paro le f or a rm ed bank r obbe ry

a nd b ec au se the pol ic e sus pe ct ed the ve hic le co nta ine d w ea

pons , D et ec tiv e H oust on d ec ide d to de ta in D ef en dant t o de te rm ine w he the r he ha d vi ola te d hi s paro le . A ft er D ef en dant tw ic e re fu se d hi s c onse nt f or 1 of fi ce rs to se ar chthe S U V , H oust on l ooke d th ro ugh the ti nte d w ind ow s of the SU V and saw a pair

of binoculars and a black canvass bag that he “ believe[d] wa s a ri fle ba g.” The S UV , which had expired registration tags , w as towed to the police station to invento ry

its contents . Of

ficer s then sou ght a search w arrant before se ar ch ing the ve hic le . D et ec tiv e H oust on and anothe r of fi ce r pr ep ar ed

aw ar rant af fi da vit ba se d oninf

orm at ionthe y

r ec ei ve d f

ro m oth er of fi ce rs a nd f

ro m the 911 ope rator . A ft er

astate j udge iss ue d th e w ar rant, of fi ce rs se ar ch ed

the S U V a nd discovered a .38-ca liber revolver w ith two rounds of am m uniti on. T he officer s5

also retrieved the binoculars and learned that what they thoug ht was a rifle bag wa s actually

an em pty portable-chair holder. Me an w hil e, be ca

use the pol ic e sus pe ct ed

D ef en dant o f be ing af

el on i n poss es sio n of

af ir earm , the of

fi ce rs ha d arr es te d D ef

en dant and b ro ught

him to the pol ic e sta tio n f

or que sti oni ng. A ft er

he ar ing his Mi randar igh ts and s ign ing a waiv er, Defe nd an t ad m it te d t ha t t he SUV and th e it em s fo un d i ns id e th e SUV be lon ge d to him . D ur ing thi s un re co rd ed int er vie w , D ef en dant s pe ci fi ca lly adm itt ed that he ha d purc ha se d th e gun fo und in the S U V , that he kne wthe gun contained two rounds of am m uniti on, and that he had placed the gun in the center console of the vehicle. In ve sti ga tor s a lso c ondu ct ed a n in ve sti ga tio n of

the it em s f

ound in the ve hic le , inc lud ing the gun . O ne c ri m e sc en e te ch nic ian a tte m pte d to c oll ec t l at en t fin ge rp rin ts fro m

th e g un bu t was on ly abl e to ob ta in cert ai n “ rid ge de ta il ” p rin ts . A nothe r fi nge rp ri nt e xa m ine r de te rm ine d th at be ca use the pr int s ha d le ss than si x co m pari son poi nts , the y

w er e of no v al ue in m ak ing a n id en tif ic at ion . T he ex am ine r, the re fo re , dis pose d of the f ing er pr int c ar d. A t tri al , Ja m es Ja ck son (“ Ja ck son” ), aj ai lho use a cqua int an ce of D ef en dant, testified that Def

endant had m ade severa l adm issio ns durin g their conversations at the P al m Be ac h C ounty

Ja il. A cc or din g to Ja ck son, D ef en dant b oa ste d th at , on the6

day pol ic e ar re ste d hi m , he ha d be en“ ca sin g aW ac hovi a bank f ro m aga s st at ion ” w ithbin oc ulars . D ef

en dant a lso sa id h e w as sur pr ise d th e pol ic e ha d no t f ound his fi nge rp ri nts on h is g un. I n a ddi tio n, D ef en dant t old

Ja ck son tha t anothe r fr ie nd

“ w as sup pose d to be in on the ir de al ” but w as li ke ly

the one w ho h ad

pla ce d th e 911 ca ll.

II. DISCUSS ION

A . R ea sona

ble S uspi ci on o f Cr im ina l B eh av ior

D ef en dant arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing his sup pr es sio n m otion s for evidence discovered in the SU V bec ause the police engaged in an unlawful sear ch and seizure. H e specifica lly m aintains that th e police lacked re as ona ble sus pic ionof

il le ga l a ct ivi ty

be fo re sto ppi ng and d et ai nin g D ef en dant and failed to m ake re asonable inq uiries to determ ine whether crim inal activity wa s af oot . F or ba ck gr ound , se e T er

ry v. O hio , 88 S . Ct . 186 8 ( 1968 ). D ef en dant a lso ar gue s th at , und er

F lor ida v. J. L . , 120 S . Ct . 137 5 ( 2000 ), the pol ic e fa ile d to v er i fy i n fo rmat i o n fr o m

an “ an o n ym o u s ” t i p b ef

o re ac t i n g o n t h e i n fo rmat i o n . We reviewa district court’ s denial of a m otion to supp ress evidence as a m ixed7

questio n of law and fact, with rulings of law r eviewe d de novo and finding s of fac t re vie w ed f or c le ar e rr or , in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party in district court. U nited States v. Boy ce, 351 F.3d 1102 , 1105 (11th Cir. 2003). To have r easonable susp icion, an office r conducting a stop m ust “ have a reasonable, articulable suspicion based on ob j ective fa cts that the person has en ga ge d in , or

is ab out to en ga ge in, c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. P ow el l, 222 F.3d 913 , 917 (11th Cir. 2000) “ The ‘ reasonable suspicion ’ m ust be m ore than ‘ aninc hoa te a nd unpart ic ulari ze d su spi ci on o r hunc h. ’ ” I d. ( quot ing T er ry v. O hio , 88 S . Ct . 186 8, 188 3 ( 1968 )) . “ Whil e ‘ re as ona ble sus pic ion ’ is a le ss de m an din g st an dard

than pr oba

ble c au se a nd r equir es asho w ing c onsi de ra bly le ss than pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce , the F ourth A m en dm en t r equir es a t l ea st a m in im al lev el of o bjec ti ve jus ti fic at io n fo r m ak in g t he st op .” Ill in oi s v . W ard lo w, 120 S. Ct . 673 , 675 -7 6 ( 2000 ). A lso , “ [a ] r ea sona ble sus pic ionof

c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty m ay be f orm ed by obs er vin g e xc lus ive ly

le ga l a ct ivi ty , ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. G or don, 231 F. 3d 7 50, 754 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) , e ve n if suc h a ct ivi ty

is “ se em ing ly

inn oc uous to the ordinary

citizen. ” U nited States v. S m ith, 201 F.3d 1317, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000 ). W e ex am ine “ the tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es ” to d et er m ine w he the r the police had “ a particulariz ed and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoin g.”The 911 caller identified himself as “Davis” and informed police that he would be at the scene 2 when police arr ived. Off icer s never

spoke with or found a

ny caller at the sce ne. 8 U nit ed S ta te s v. A rv iz u, 122 S . Ct . 744 , 750 ( 2002 ) (c itatio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ark s o m it te d) . W e al so reco gn iz e th atth e p ol ic e m ay “ dr aw on th ei r own ex pe ri en ce a nd s pe ci al iz ed tr ai nin g to m ak e inf

er en ce s f ro m a nd d ed uc tio ns a bout the cum ulative inform ation available to them that m ight well elude an untrained pe rs on. ” Id . a t 75 0- 51 ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks o m itt ed ). T o have re as ona ble sus pic ionba se d ona n anony m ous tip , the ti p m

ust “ be r el ia ble in its assertion of illegality , not j ust in it s tendency to identify

a deter m inate person.” J. L . , 120 S . Ct . a t 13 79. “ T he iss ue is w he the r the ti p, a s c or ro bor at ed by ind ep en de nt p oli ce w ork, e xhi bit ed suf fi ci en t i ndi ci a of

r el ia bil ity to pr ovi de reasonable suspicion to m ake the investigato ry stop.” A labam a v. White, 110 S. Ct. 2412 , 2414 (1990). The totality

of the circ um stances in this case dem onstrates that the po lice had m ore than an “ inchoate and unp articularize d susp icion” based on an

“ anonym ous” tip. T he tip was consistent with specific fa cts alrea dy discovered 2 dur ing the ong oin g in ve sti ga tio n in to s ev er al bank r obbe ri es in the a re a inv olv ing three to four black m ales driving large SU Vs. T he police also knew of tw o arm ed ro bbe ri es of

pa tr ons co m

m itt ed by tw o bl ac k m al es out sid e the ve ry br an chofEx tra fa cts in this case c ause it to diffe r sig nificantly from the ba re- boned-tip situation in Florida 3 v. J .L ., 120 S. Ct. 1375 (2000). The Court in J .L . conclude d that “an a nony mous tip t hat a pe rson is carr ying a g un is, without m ore, [in] sufficie nt to just ify a police of

fice r’s stop and frisk of that person.” I d. at 1377 (e mphasis added) . In this case, the total c ircumstance s, including the 911 caller ’s tip combined with a location close-by a bank a nd co m b ined with the fa ct of a n ong oing independe nt police investig ation of re cent unsolved a rmed robbe ries of ba

nks -- robbe ries which inv olv e d p e rs on s o f the same se x, ra c e , and numbe r d e sc ri be d b y the tip and

a ve hic le of

the same g e ne ra l kin d a s de sc ri be d by the tip -- pr ov ide d “ su ff ic ie nt i nd ic ia

of re lia bil ity to p ro vid e re a so na

ble suspicion to make the investig atory stop.” I d. at 1378 (quotingWhit e, 110 S. Ct. at 2414).

9 W ac hovi a Bank tha t w as a cr oss f ro m the loc at ionof

D ef en dant’ s S U V . T his ind ep en de nt k

now le dge c or

ro bor at ed the 911 c al le r’ s a sse rt ionthat the m enin the SU V w ere loading guns in to the vehicle across from the bank. In a dditi on, w hen Of ficer Tie rney ’ s vehicle cam e into view at the gas station, the SU V’ s sudd en m ovem ent from

its parked location ov er to a gas pum p gave rise to further s u s p i c i o n . T h u s , r a t h e r

t h a n r e a c t i n g t o ame r e “h u n c h , ” t h e o f f i c e r s e n g a g e di n “a m ethod of

inv es tig at ionthat w as li ke ly to co nf irm or dis pe l the ir

sus pic ion s qui ck ly , a nd w itham ini m um of int er fe re nc e, ” as dic ta te d by apot en tia lly dange ro us s itu at ion . U nit ed S ta te s v. G il, 204 F . 3d 1 347, 135 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) 3 (quotin g United States v. Hardy , 855 F. 2d 75 3, 759 (11th Cir. 1988)).

B. P ro bable Ca

use f or D ef en dant’ s A rr es tDe fe nd ant c ha lle ng e s th e ma g istrate jud g e ’s de te rm inatio n that the po lic e ha d p ro ba ble c a us e 4 to a rr e st D e fe nd ant f

or loi te ri ngun de r F lor ida law. He c la ims that if the po lic e tr uly ha d p ro ba

ble cause to arre st him for loitering or another cr ime such as c onspiracy to commit bank robbery , the police would not have rele ased the ot h er m en t h at we re in the SUV. How the other me n wer e treated, however, is not deter minative of whe ther De fenda nt was treated lawf

ully . And eve n if the po lic e la c ke d p ro ba

ble c a us e to a rr e st D e fe nd ant f

or the se oth e r c ri me s, the pol ic e ha d p ro ba ble cause t o ar re st Defe ndant for be ing a felon in possession of a f irea rm at the point they

discovere d De fe nd ant w a s a

fe lon and re a so na bly be lie ve d th at D e fe nd ant’ s v e hic le c on ta ine d a fi re arm . 10 D ef en dant n ex t arg ue s th at

the of fi ce rs a rr es te d hi m

w ith out pr oba ble c au se an d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt, the re fo re , sho uld ha ve sup pr es se d hi s po st- ar re st sta te m en ts. W e dis ag re e. A lth oughpr oba ble c au se inv olv es agr eate r ce rt ai nty of cr im ina l be ha vio r than r ea sona ble sus pic ion , pr oba

ble c au se doe s no t r equir e the sam e “ standard of conclusiv eness and probabil ity as the fac ts necessary

to supp ort a co nvi ct ion . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. D unn, 345 F . 3d 1 285, 129 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) (quot ing W ood v. K es le r, 323 F . 3d 8 72, 873 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ). P ro bable c au se to ar re st e xis ts whe n th e tot al ity of the f ac ts and c ir cu m stanc es sup port “ a re as ona ble be lie f tha t the sus pe ct

ha d c om m itt ed or w as c om m itt ing ac ri m e. ” G or don, 231 F. 3d at 758 (citation om itted). Ina ddi tio n to the c ir cu m stanc es that gave r ise to a re as ona ble sus pic ionof illegal behavior to su pport the ini tial stop, several fa cts establish th at the police had probable cause to arrest D efendant for being a f elon in po ssessio n of a fi re ar m . T he 911 c al l pr ovi de d sp ec if ic inf orm at ionthat the m enw er e loa din g 4 w ea pons a nd p la ci ng the m

int o th e SU V , w hic h w as park ed a cr oss f ro m theAfter

police had c onfronted D efe ndant with this evidence , he twice ref used his consent to sea

rch 5 his ve hic le . D e fe nd ant c la ims that th e po lic e c onsi dere d his re fu sa l to c on se nt i n v iol atio n o f h is Four th Amendment rig hts. W e recog nize “that a re fusal to coope rate [wit h police], without m ore, does not f urnish the minimal leve l of objective justification ne eded for a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 111 S.Ct . 2382, 2387 (1991) ( emphasis adde d). That the a rre sting off

icer s subjectively

considere d Def endant’ s ref

usal to consent, howe ver, is not determinative of a court’s le g al conc lusion of w h e th e r p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t e d

t o j u s t i f y th e ar r e s t . “ S u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t i o n s p l ay n o r o l e i no r d i n ar y, probable -ca

use F ourt h Ame n d me nt a naly sis.” Whren v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1774 (1996). We h ave “ e xplic itl y

re je c te d th e ide a that the su bje c tiv e be lie f of the arr e sti ng of fi c e r is re le va

nt t o the de te rm inatio n o f whe the r pr ob a ble c a us e e xists .” Rank in v. Ev ans , 13 3 F .3 d 1 42 5, 14 33 (1 1th Cir. 1998). “Instead, a

n arr est will be upheld if the objec tive circ u m s t an ces justify the ar rest.” United States v. J ones, 377 F.3d 1313, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). B ased on the totality of the fa cts and circ umstances in this case -- apart from the Defenda nt’s failure to consent to a sea rch 

### -- we c onclude that probable cause exis ted to justify Def endant’ s arr est. Although w e do not consider the re fusal to consent, we do not de cide today whether the fa ct of a nd manner

of a r efusa l to consent to a sea rch can e ver c ount in the “totality of the c ircumstance s” ana ly sis that a court must bear in mind when de c idi ngwh e the r p ro ba

ble c a us e fo r a se izur e do e s e xist. 11 W achovia Bank. A fter the police had detained the four m en, the off icers observed an arm ored car

pullin g up to the bank and gu ards loading m oney into th e ar

m ored car. T he police also discov ered that all f our m en we re c onvi cted felons and that the registered ow ner of the vehicle, De fendant, had a past convictio n for ar m ed bank robb ery . Peer ing th rough th e tinted windows of the SU V, officer s saw bin oc ulars a nd w ha t the y “ be lie ve [d ] w as ar if

le ba g. ” V ie w ing the se e ve nts in

5 the light of the ongoin g investi gation in to several ar m ed bank robberies in the area an d tw o sp ec if

ic a rm ed r obbe ri es in the park ing lot of the sa m e br an chof W ac hovi a Bank, the tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es sup ports the c onc lus ionthat the pol ic e ha d pr oba

ble c au se to ar

re st D ef en dant. T hus, the pos t- ar re st s ta te m en ts m ade by De fendant after

rec eiving h is Miranda warnings were adm issib le.12 C. V al idi ty

of the S earc h W ar

rant

D ef en dant a lso c ont en ds tha t the pol ic e ill eg al ly obt ai ne d aw ar

rant t o se ar chhis S U V be ca

use the w ar

rant w as not

sup porte d by

pr oba ble c au se a nd because the sear ch warrant af fidavit contained several m aterial m isstatem ents that were m ad e kno win gl y

an d i nt en ti on al ly or wit h a reck le ss di sr eg ardforth e trut h. D ef en dant arg ue s, the re fo re , that the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have sup pr es se d th e evidence retr ieved from

his vehicle. W e do not reach the issue of whether the searc h war

rant in this case wa s va lid . W e co nc lud e tha t a w ar rant w as unn ec es sary

to se ar chD ef

en dant’ s ve hic le unde r the auto m obi le e xc ep tio n to the w ar rant r equir em en t. T he auto m obi le ex ce pti on a llo w s th e pol ic e to c ondu ct ase ar chof

ave hic le if

( 1) the ve hic le is readily m obile; and (2) the poli ce have probable ca use for the sear ch. United St at es v. W atts, 329 F . 3d 1 282, 128 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . T he r equir em en t ofAl t h o u gh t h e orig inal justification for the a utomobile ex ception wa s the exigenc y of the 6 circ umstances, we have “made it c lear that the re quirement of e x ige nt circumstanc es is satisfied by the ‘re ady mobilit y ’ i nhere nt in all automobiles that rea sonably appea r to be c apable of func tioning.” Watts, 329 F.3d at 1286 (quotation marks a nd citation omitted). In J ohns, the Supreme Court a pplied the automobile exception to evidenc e found in two pick-up 7 trucks that wer e sear ched three day s afte r DEA off icer s arr ested the oc cupants a nd impounded the trucks. Johns, 105 S . Ct. at 8 8 4 -86. The Court state d that “the justification to conduc t such a war rantless searc h does not vanish once the ca r has be en immobiliz ed. A ve hicle lawf ully in police custody may be sea rche d on the basis of probable cause t o believe that it contains contraba nd, and there is no require ment of exigent circ umstances to justify a war rantless sear ch.” I d. at 885 (interna l citation and quotation marks omitted). 13 m obi lity is sa tis fi ed

m er el y if “ the auto m obi le is ope ratio na l. ” I d. I n a ddi tio n, 6

“ [t ] he re is no r equir em en t tha t the w ar rantl es s se ar chof

ave hic le oc cur co nte m por an eo usl y

w ithit s law fu l se iz ur e” or that othe r “ ex ige nt c ir cu m stanc es ” ex ist . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Joh ns, 105 S . Ct . 881 , 885 ( 1985 ). T he ke y iss ue he re is 7 whe th er t he po li ce h adpro ba bl e cau se forth e se arch an d s ei zu re o f th e v eh ic le .

“ Probable cause, in turn, exists when under the totality of the circ um stances, ther e is a f ai r pr oba bil ity that c ontra

band o r ev ide nc e of

ac ri m e w ill be f

ound in the ve hic le . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. T am ar i, 454 F . 3d 1 259, 126 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( ci ta tio n and internal quo tation m arks om itted). T he pol ic e ha d pr oba

ble c au se to se ar chthe ve hic le : the y kne wD ef

en dant was a fel on an d t ha t h e o wne d t he SUV; an d, g iv en th e ev en ts at t he ga s s ta ti on , a fa ir pr oba bil ity e xis te d th at

the ve hic le c ont ai ne d af ir earm ba se d onthe tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es . B ec au se the r equir em en ts o f the auto m obi le e xc ep tio n are m et ,Def

endant claims that the fing erpr int c ard may have pr ovided some exculpatory evidenc e for 8 the jury to conclude that someone other tha n Def endant plac ed the gun in the vehicle. 14 th e p ol ic e co ul d h av e se arch edDefen da nt ’s veh ic le lawf ul ly w it ho ut a warra nt . Ther efore, the validityof the sear ch warrant is not im portant; and th e evidence obt ai ne d f

ro m the S U V w as pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed .

D . D es tr uc tio n of F ing er pr int Card a nd B ra dy

E rr or

D ef en dant n ex t a lle ge s th at

de str uc tio n of the f ing er pr int c ar d w ith inc om ple te pr int s c onst itu te s r ev er sib le e rr or und er Br ady v. Mary land, 83 S . Ct . 1194 ( 1963 ). Whe n ade fe ndant d oe s no t r ai se aBr ady obj ec tio n inhis m oti on 8 fo r a ne wtr ia l, w e ne ed

onl y c ondu ct apla in e rr or

r ev ie w . U nit ed

S ta te s v. K er se y , 130 F . 3d 1 463, 146 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . T o m ak e a va lid c la im that the governm ent im

properly withheld or destroy ed possi bly exculpatory

evidence under Brady , a

defendant also m

ust dem onstrate that the gov ernm ent acted in bad faith. Ar izona v. Y oung bloo d, 109 S. Ct. 333, 336-37 (1998). D ef en dant’ s c la im

that the f ing er pr int c ar d c oul d have be ene xc ulp at or y is bo th hi gh ly spe cu la ti ve an d i ns uf fic ie nt to ris e to th e le ve l o f Bra dy error .15

Defen da nt ad m it te d t ha t h e o wne d t he gu n a nd th athe pl aced it in si de th e SUV. Furtherm ore, De fendant has produced no evidence that the fingerprint exam iner ac te d inba d f

ai th i n de str oy ing the f

ing er pr int c ar d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pla inl y e rr by r el y ing on the gov er

nm en t’ s e vid en ce that this a ct w as pur suant t o a ro uti ne pr oc ed

ur e of thr ow ing out

f ing er pr int c ar ds c ont ai nin g no va lua ble inf orm at ionto m ak e anide nti fi catio n. T hus, D ef en dant h as sho w n no Br ady error . E. Ev i d e n c e o f Un c h a r g e dC r i mi n a l Ac t i v i t y A t tri al , the pr ose cu tio n in tr oduc ed e vid en ce that D ef

en dant w as planni ng a bank r obbe ry , inc lud ing the te sti m ony of aj ai lho use a cqua int an ce that D ef en dant ha d a dm itt ed

the plan. D ef

en dant n owc la im s th at

thi s e vid en ce w as im

pr ope rl y intro duc ed

a s e vid en ce of

ba d c hara ct er . W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to adm it evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for a cle ar a buse of discretion. United States v. Para dies, 98 F. 3d 12 66, 1291 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n ina dm itt ing ev id en ce o f Defen da nt ’s pl an to co m m it an arm edrob be ry

in or a ro un d t he ba nk . T his e vid en ce w as a dm iss ibl e to e sta bli sh tha t D ef

en dant k now ing ly pos se sse d th eDef

endant a lso contends that classify ing his prior

convictions as either

a violent fe lony

or a 9 serious drugoffe nse must be alleg ed in the indictment and pr oved to a jury . But, the nature and fa ct of a pr ior conviction ar e for the district court’s de termination. United States v. Gre er, 440 F .3d 126 7 , 1 2 7 4 -7 6 (11th Cir. 2006). B eca use De fenda

nt never objected to the f

act of his prior c onvic tio ns or the ir c la ssi fi c atio n a s vio le nt fe lon ie s in the PSI , he is d e e me d to have a dmi tte d th e se finding s. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). 16 w ea pon an d a m

m uni tio n and tha t he ha d a

m oti ve f or doi ng s o. A lso , e vid en ce of a plan to rob a bank was inextricably intertwined w ith po ssessio n of the firearm and was nec essary

to com plete the story

of the crim e. A dm issio n of this evid ence for these purposes is valid under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

F. Sentencing Er

rors De fendant claim s that the dist rict court im properly sentenced him

as an ar m ed c ar ee r cr im ina l be ca

use his pr ior

c onvi ct ion s and a lle ge d c onsp ir ac y to com m it bank robb ery

we re neither c harged in the indi ctm ent nor proved to a jury be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. D ef

en dant a lso a rg ue s th at

ase nte nc e of

300 m onths’ 9 im pr iso nm en t w as unr ea sona ble und er Bo oke r v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 125 S . Ct . 738 (2 005) . W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s de novo a nd f

ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ilk s, 464 F . 3d 1 240, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006).17

De fendant’ s claim s of err or during sent encing m ust fail. N othin g in Book er dis tur be d th e Su

pr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n A lm en dare z- T or re s v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 118 S. Ct . 121 9 ( 1998 ), that a dis tr ic t c ourt m ay

r el y on p ri or c onvi ct ion s to en hanc e a de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e ev enif not a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t or pr ove d to a jury. Uni te d S ta te s v . She lt on , 40 0 F .3d 13 25 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Furtherm ore, in calculating the appropriate adviso ry guidelin e range, Booker does not forbid a dist rict court fr om considering crim inal acts for w hich a defendant has n o tb e e n c h a r g e do r

h a s b e e n a c qu i t t e da s l o n g a s t h o s e a c t s a r e p r o v e db y a pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce . U nit ed

S ta te s v. F au st, 456 F . 3d 1 342, 134 7 (2 006) . I n th is c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt c om pli ed w ithBo oke r by

tr eatin g th e se nte nc ing gui de lin es a s a dvi sor y a nd e xa m ini ng the se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s to de te rm ine apr ope r se nte nc e. W e co nc lud e, the re fo re , that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t abuse its dis cretion in consid ering De fendant’ s prior convictio ns and an alleged conspiracy

to com m it bank robb ery . W e also conclude that Def endant’ s sentence of 300 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent was r easonable. AFFIR MED.18

BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: I dis se nt b ec au se I be lie ve that the pol ic e la ck ed r ea sona ble sus pic ionto se iz e A nth ony

L ind se y a t gunpoi nt, a nd tha t hi s e xte nde d, handc uf fe d de te nti on thus am ount ed to an unlawful searc h and seizure. Of ficer s conductin g “ stop and frisk” seizure s m ust “ have a re asonable, ar tic ula ble sus pic ionba se d onobj ec tiv e fa ct s th at the pe rs on h as e nga ge d in , or is ab out to en ga ge in, c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. P ow el l, 222 F . 3d 9 13, 917 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . To d e t e rmi n e wh e t h e r r e a s o n ab l e s u s p i c i o n e x i s t e dt o ju s t i f y a sto p, w e m

ust loo k on ly

to the inf orm at ionthat the pol ic e ha d a t the m om en t of de te nt io n, n ot th atwhi ch was d is co ve redaft er t he fact . Inthi s c as e, the re w as no “ re as ona ble , a rt ic ula

ble sus pic ionba se d on obj ec tiv e fa ct s” that A nth ony L ind se y ha d e nga ge d in , or

w as about

to en ga ge in, cr im ina l a ct ivi ty

w he n he w as sto ppe d. T he pur porte d r ea sona

ble sus pic iona ro se sol el y f ro m ati p de liv er ed

by a n anony m ous ca lle r, w ho, a lth oughhe sa id h is nam e w as “ Davis,” w as com pletely unkn own to the police. T he anonym ous tip ster re porte d th at

f our bla ck m enw er e loa din g guns i nto aw hit e SU V in the park ing lot of a Mobil gas statio n across the street f rom a W achovia bank. T his tip wa s virtua lly ide nti ca l t o th e tip w hic h th e Su pr em e Co urt f

ound to be ins uf

fi ci en t t o supp ort a T er ry sto p inF lor ida

v. J. L . , 529 U . S. 266 ( 2000 ). S ee T er ry v. O hio ,19

391 U.S . 1 ( 1968 ). In J. L. , an unid entified tipster reported that a y oung black m an we aring a plaid shirt was sitting at a bus sto p and was ca rry ing a gun . T he Court ex pli ci tly f ound that a sto p and f

ri sk b as ed

on this ti p w as il le ga l be ca use the of fi ce rs ’ sus pic ion“ ar ose not f ro m a ny obs er va tio ns o f the ir

ow n, ” id. a t 27 0, but rather f rom the anonym ous tip . The C ourt m ade its holdi ng un m istakablyclear :

“ T he que sti on p re se nte d inthi s c as e is whe the r ana nony m ous tip that a

pe rs on i s carr y ing agunis, w ith out

m or e, suf

fi ci en t t o j ust if

y apol ic e of

fi ce r’ s st op and fri skof t ha t p ers on . W e h ol d t ha t i t i s n ot .” Id . at 2 68 . The C ourt held that su ch a tip wa s insu fficient to perm it even a T erry inv es tig at or

y sto p be ca

use it w as not r el ia ble . T he r equis ite r el ia

bil ity of ati p suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t su spi ci on tha t a

c ri m e is a

bout to be c om

m itt ed ha s to be sa tis fi ed in one of tw o w ay s. E ith er

the ti p m ust c om e fr om

a“ known in fo rm an t whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held re spon sible if her al le gatio ns t

ur n ou t t o be f

ab ri cate d. ” I d. a t 27 0 ( em pha sis a dde d) ( quot at iona nd ci ta tio n om itt ed ). O r the c ont en t of the ti p m ust inc lud e ac curate pr ed ic tiv e inf orm at ionw hic h is ve ri fi ed by the sub se que nt o bse rv at ion s of the de ta ini ng of fi ce r. I d. a t 27 1. T ha t i s, the ti p it se lf m ust sho wthat the ti pst er

ha s su ff ic ie nt fam ili ar ity

w iththe f

ac t tha t c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty

“ m ay be a fo ot, ” in tha t the ti pst er is able to relate the future m ovem ents or actions of the prospectiv e detainee that ar e20

not e as ily pr ed ic ta ble , a nd w hic h th e pol ic e ve ri fy thr oughind ep en de nt obse rv at ionbe fo re the sto p. I n e ith er c as e, pol ic e m

ust ha ve som e w ay

to as se ss whether the inform ation giv en in the tip is s ufficiently reliable f or constitu tional purpos es to justify

a police seizure. Inthe f ir st i nst an ce , if

a n in fo rm an t i s “ known, ” pol ic e can be r ea sona bly sa tis fi ed that the ti p is r el ia

ble ba se d onthe inf

orm an t’ s pa st d el ive ry

of a cc ur at e inf orm at ion . S ee A da m s v. W ill ia m s, 407 U . S. 143 , 148 -4 9 ( 1972 ) (s ust ai nin g a T er ry sto p un de rt ak enon the ba sis of ati p gi ve n inpe rs on b y

akno w n in fo rm an t who had provided accurate inform ation in th e past); see a lso Alabam a v. White, 496 U.S . 325, 328 (1990) (citing Adam s, 407 U. S. at 146-47). More over, inform ants with known identit ies can be held acc ount able if the inform ation they provide is false or intentio nally m isleading, J.L ., 529 U.S . at 270, givin g them in cen ti ve to be ho ne st . In this case there w as no “ known” inform ant. G iving him self a nam e does not transform

a tipster into a “ known inform ant whose reputation can be assessed an d wh o c an be he ld res po ns ib le if [h is ] al le ga ti on s t urn o ut to be fab ric at ed .” J.L., 529 U . S. a t 27 0 ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). S el f- ide nti fi catio n by na m e al one is m eaningless when no inform ation is available to v erify whetherthe selfide nti fi catio n is tr

ue or f al se . T he pol ic e did

not kno w“ D av is, ” ha d ne ve r de al tIndeed, in this ca se, the tipster’s infor mation was fa lse. No “guns” appe ar to have bee n loaded 1 into this SUV—the only g un found wa s a handgun in the console, whic h provided the ba sis of the c h ar g e s a g a i n s tL i n d s e y. 21 with “ Davis” before, and did no t even know if “ Davis” was a real nam e. They ne ve r loo ke d f

or the c al le r, a nd n ev er

r ec ei ve d any

a ddi tio na l i nf

orm at ionf

ro m or ab out him . T he pol ic e thu s ha d no ba sis on whic h to a sse ss the c al le r’ s r ep uta tio n or inf orm at ion , a nd n o w ay

to hol d hi m

a cc ount ab le if

his a lle ga tio ns t

ur ne d ou t t o be f ab ri cate d. 1 Inthe se co nd i nst an ce , if ati p c om es f

ro m a n un known pe rs on, r el ia bil ity m ay be based on the fact that the tipster shows inside kn owledge of cr im inal a c t i v i t y b y a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t i n g t h e s ub je c t ’s b e h a v i o r , wh i c h i s t h e n v e r i f i e db y pol ic e obse rv at ion . S im

ply de sc ri bin g asub

j ec t i s no t e noug h. A s th e Co urt m ad e cl ear in J . L . , r equir ing e ith er that the inf

orm an t be kno w n and r el ia ble f ro m pa st dealings, or that the tipster, if anonym ous, provide predictive future behavior, guard s a ga ins t the unw itt ing m isu se of the pol ic e pow er . Avin dic tiv e pe rs on, or m erely a m istaken person, shou ld not be able to eff ectuate the seizure of another by sim ply calling the poli ce, describing the ob j ect of their m alice or their m istake, an d c on cl us or il y

st at in g t ha t a c rime is b ei ng , or g oi ng to be , comm it te d b y hi m . Beca use “ Davis” was not a known inform ant, the inform ation the po lice re ce ive d f ro m him c oul d no t j ust if

y aT er ry sto p un le ss the ti p m ad e22

pr ed ic tio ns—

not m er el y de sc ri pti ons—

w hic h c oul d be te ste d by sub se que nt po li ce i nv es ti ga ti on . In d is cu ss in g Al ab am a v . Whi te , th e Supr em e Co ur t i n J .L. ex pla ine d it s j ur isp ru de nc e on this poi nt: InWhit e, the pol ic e re ce ive d an anony m ous tip a sse rt ing that a w om anw as c ar

ry ing c oc ai ne a nd p re dic tin g th at she w oul d leave an apar

tm ent build ing at a specified tim e, get into a car m at ch ing apart ic ular de sc ri pti on, a nd dri ve to a na m ed m ote l. Standing alon e, the tip would no t have j ustified a Te rry sto p. Only after police observation showed that the inform ant had ac curate ly

pr ed ic te d th e w om an ’ s m ove m en ts, w e ex pla ine d, did it be co m e re as ona

ble to thi nk the ti pst er

ha d in sid e know le dge about

the sus pe ct

a nd the re fo re to cr ed it his as se rt ionabout

the c oc ai ne . A lth oughthe Co urt he ld tha t the susp icion in W hite becam e re asonable after police surveillance, w e re gard ed

the c as e as bor de rl ine . K now le dge about

a person’ s future m ovem ents indi cates som e fam iliarity with that pe rs on’ s a ff

ai rs , but ha vin g su chkno w le dge doe s no t necessarily

im ply that the inform ant knows, in particular, wh et h ert h at p er s o n i s ca rryin g h i d d en co n t ra b an d . We acco rd in gl y

cla ss ifi edWhi te as a “ cl os e cas e.” J.L ., 529 U.S . at 270-71 (em phasis add ed) (internal c itations om itted). T he Court the n to ok g re at

pa ins to cl ar if

y that the r el ev an t qu es tio n is not w he the r the tipster’ s description o f w hat he or she is seeing is accurate, but rather w hether the re a re a cc om

pany ing pr ed ic tio ns o f fu tur e ac tio ns whic h are the n f ound to be ac curate thr oughsub se que nt p oli ce sur ve ill an ce or

inv es tig at ionso a s to m ak e the tip r el ia ble . T he ti p inJ. L . “ la ck ed the m ode rate ind ic iaof

r el ia bil ity pr es en t i n23

Whit e an d e sse nti al to the Co urt’ s de ci sio n inthat c as e” be ca use it “ pr ovi de d no pr ed ic tiv e inf

orm at iona nd the re fo re le ft the pol ic e w ith out

m eans t o te st the inf orm an t’ s kn ow le dge or

c re dib ili ty . ” J. L . , 529 U . S. a t 27 1. S im ila rl y , in Il lin ois v. G at es , a nothe r tip c as e, the Co urt po int ed to the f ac t tha t “ the a nony

m ous [t ip] co nta ine d ar an ge of

de ta ils r el at ing not

j ust to ea sil y obt ai ne d f

ac ts and c ondi tio ns ex ist ing a t the ti m e of

the ti p, but

to fu tur e ac tio ns o f thi rd part ie s or din ar ily

not ea sil y pr ed ic te d. ” 462 U . S. 213 , 245 ( 1983 ) (e m pha sis a dde d) . S ee a lso Whit e, 496 U . S. a t 33 2 ( poi nti ng t o “ ind ep en de nt c or ro bor at ionby

the pol ic e of

sig nif ic an t as pe ct s of the inf orm er ’ s pr ed ic tio ns [ w hic h] im part ed som e de gr ee of

r el ia bil ity to the oth er a llegations m ade by the caller ”) ( em

phasis add ed). T hus, the “ re lia

bil ity ” of the ti p do es not

r el at e to whe the r the ti p a cc ur at el y de sc ri be s apart ic ular pe rs on. T he r el ev an t i nqui ry is w he the r the ti p is r el ia ble in it s ab il it y to de sc rib e cri m in al act iv it y . As th e Co ur t n ot edin J.L.: A n a cc ur at e de sc ri pti on o f a subj ec t’ s r ea dil y obs er vable location and app earance is of course re liable in this lim ited se nse : I t w ill he lp the pol ic e co rr ec tly ide nti fy the pe rs on w hom the ti pst er

m eans t o a cc use . S uc h ati p, how ev er , doe s no t sh ow t h a tt h e t i p s t e r

h a s kn o w l e d g e o f

c o n c e a l e dc r i mi n a l a c t i v i t y. T he r ea sona

ble sus pic ionhe re a t i ssu e re qui re s th at ati p be re lia ble in its a sse rt ionof

il le ga lity , not

j ust in its te nde nc y

to id en ti fy a de te rm in at e p ers on . 52 9 U.S. at 27 2 (e m

ph as is ad de d) .24

Nor does it m ake a diff

erence that the description in cludes the presence of a fi re ar m . T he re is no f

ir earm e xc ep tio n to the r el ia

bil ity r equir em en t. Whe n th e ar gum en t w as m ad e in J . L . that a ti p a lle gin g an il le ga l gun sh oul d j ust if y asto p an d f ri sk e ve n if

the a cc usa tio n w oul d f

ai l st an dard

pr e- se ar chr el ia

bil ity te sti ng, the S upr em e Co urt pl ai nly state d: “ W e de cl ine to ad opt thi s po sit ion . ” Id . Be ca use the ti p w hic h f

orm ed the ba sis of

the se iz ur e he re w as not re lia ble —tha t i s, it

did not c om e fr om

akno w n in fo rm an t, nor

did it pr ovi de pr ed ic tiv e inf

orm at ionw hic h c oul d be ve ri fi ed by pol ic e inv es tig at ion

—i t c an not , under J.L ., be used to sup port reasonable suspi cion. Both tips cam e fr om sources unkn ow n to the pol ic e an d de sc ri be d ape rs on’ s r ac e, loc at ion , a lle ge d po sse ssi on of af ir earm a nd an a ddi tio na l purp orte d id en tif y ing c hara ct er ist ic —apla id s hirt i n J.L . and a white SU V her e. Ne ither tip dem onstrated a “ knowledge of concealed cr im ina l a ct ivi ty . ” I f the ti p inJ. L . c oul d no t su ppor t r ea sona ble sus pic ion , the ti p in th is cas e can no t d o s o e it he r. The m aj ority

attem pts to avo id the reach of J. L. by say ing th at the police re lie d onm or e than th e an ony m ous tip . S pe ci fi ca lly , the m aj or ity say s th at “ the 911 ca lle r’ s ti p c om

bin ed w ithind ep en de nt p oli ce inv es tig at ionof r ec en t bank ro bbe ri es pr ovi de d su ff

ic ie nt i ndi ci a of

r el ia bil ity to pr ovi de r ea sona

ble sus pic ion to m ake the investigato ry stop.” Fir st, a c ontin uing “ investig ation” of an unsol ved25

cr im e ha s no thi ng t o do w iththe inv es tig at ionr equir ed by J. L . in or de r to p er

m it re lianc e on a

ti p. T he inv es tig at ionr equir ed by J. L . is aninv es tig at ionof the ti p itself. That is, the police m ust cond uct investig ation to v erify that the predicted susp icious activityrelay ed in the tip do es in fact occ ur. The f act that the police de pa rtment h adon go in g o pe n i nv es ti ga ti on s o f un so lv edcri m es is irr el ev an t h ere. T he onl y thi ngs co nne ct ing the se m ento the uns olv ed c ri m es w er e the ir

r ac e an d ge nde r, a nd the f

ac t tha t the y

w er e in a larg e ve hic le . T his is sur el y ac om m on oc cu rren ce i n West Pal m Beac h. Mor eo ve r, the f

ac t tha t the Ci ty

of W es t P al m

Be ac h ha d un sol ve d bank ro bbe ri es w hic h w er e sti ll unde r inv es tig at iona dds ab sol ute ly nothin g to w ar

rant reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t t he se fou r bl ackm en ha d a nyth in g t o d o wi th th em . Pr ior c om m iss ionof

bank r obbe ri es in W es t P al m Be ac h by

bla ck m ensur el y cannot be suf fi ci en t t o j ust if

y the de te nti on o f an y

gr oup of bla ck m enin larg e ve hic le s a t ga s st at ion s lo cate d ne ar banks. S uc h avie we sse nti al ly j ust if ie s th e im m ed ia te se iz ur e of

a ny c iti ze n a cc ur at el y

de sc ri be d by

a n un known ti pst er

of indeterm inate reliability , so long as that description also happens to m atch the rac e an d ge nde r of

sus pe ct s f

ro m uns olv ed c ri m es . U nde r thi s te st, “ [a ] ny body w ith en oughkno w le dge about agiv enpe rs on t o m ak e he r the targ et of apr an k, or

toSerg eant Tiern ey , t h e fi rst office r on the sce ne, testified that he was c oncer ned about the 2 possibili ty of weapons “where the ca ller had indicated that they wer e loadingwea

pons in the car ,” and “[t]he prox imity

t o t h e b an kand with the history we ha d had as f

ar a s the bank take overs.” Tierne y did not testify

as to the deta ils of any

of these ba

nk robber ies, and ther e is no evidenc e in the rec ord that he kne w any thing a bout the robber ies—including even the rac e a n d gen der of the robber s—other than that they had occ urre d. Detec tive J ason Houston, who ar rived on th e s c e n e at least ten minutes af ter Serg eant Tie rney ha d d e ta ine d th e fo ur me n at g un po int , te sti fi e d that the re ha d b e e n f our b ank ro bb e ri e s in

Wes t Pa lm Be ach be tween October and Decembe r of 2003, though none ha d occur red be tween D ece mber a

nd Fe br u ar y 2 0 0 4 , th e d ate o f L in d s e y ’ s ar r e s t. T h e b an k r o b b e r ie s w e r e c o n d u c te d b y thr e e or four bla c k me n who wo uld e nte r the ba nk ma sk e d and arm e d wi th lon gg un s. Although, “ larg er” vehicles wer e used, no white S UV was ever descr ibed as being used i n one of these robbe ries, In addition, Houston testified that a Wachovia customer wa s robbed in the pa rkinglot of the bank by

two black men using a handgun in September 2003. 26 harb or agr udge a ga ins t he r, w ill c er ta inl y be able to fo rm

ula te ati p” w hic h c oul d res ul t i n a n i m

pr op er s ei zu re. See Whi te , 49 6 U.S. at 33 3 (S te ve ns , J., di ss en ti ng ). N or did the of fi ce rs obs er

ve L ind se y

a nd h is c om

panio ns e nga ge in an y sus pic iou s a ct ivi ty . Whe n S er ge an t T ie rn ey f ir st s awL ind se y , he w as in a w hit e SU V which was sim

ply pullin g up to a gas pum

p from a parked position at a gas station. At this point, Tier ney , who was aw are that bank robb eries had been co m m itt ed in the c ity , kne wonl y

that an anony

m ous ca lle r ha d r ep orte d th at f our 2 black m en we re loading gun s into a white SU V in the parking lot of a Mobil gas sta tio n a cr oss the str ee t f

ro m aW ac hovi a bank. T he re ha d be enno d es cr ipt ionof w ha t the se m enw er e w eari ng n or of a ny of the ir phy sic al c hara ct er ist ic s be y ond tha t the y w er e bla ck

a nd w er e in a

w hit e SU V . T ie rn ey

sawaw hit e SU V pul lin g out of a parking sp ace in the gas station up to the gas pum p and four black m alesI t appea rs from the r ec o rd t h at S erg eant Tie rney drewhis weapon a

nd forc ed the men to the 3 g ro un d at a

pp ro ximate ly

10 :40 a .m. , a

nd that the ot her thre e me n w e re re le a se d at a pp ro ximate ly 11:30, so his detention lasted in the rang e of 45 minutes to one hour . The S upreme Court told us qui te clea rly in Terr y that we must deter

mine “whe ther [the] search 4 and seizure of

petitioner we re rea sonable, both at their inc eption and as c onducted.” 329 U.S. at 27- 28. The ma n n er i n which this seizure was e ffe ctuated—where seven or eig ht office rs bra

ndishing g un s f or c e d L ind se y

and his c omp anio ns to p ro str ate th emselv e s o n th e g ro un d a nd imm e diate ly handcuf fed the m, despite the fact t hat none of t he officer s had observed any suspicious behavior or possible w eapons—e x cee ded the bounds of Terr y and constituted an arr est requiringprobable cause . A Ter ry stop “ca nnot continue for a

n excessive per iod of time . . . or resemble a traditional arre st.” Hiibel v. Six th J udicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004) (citations omitted); see also F lorida v. Roye r, 46 0 U .S. 49 1, 50 0 ( 19 83 ) (“ Th is muc h, ho we ve r, is c le ar: an inve sti g ativ e de te nti on mus t b e t e mp o r ar

y an d l a s tn o l o n g e r

th ani s n e c e s s ar

y t o e f f e c tu at e th e p ur

p o s e o f th e s t o p . S i m i l ar l y, the inv e sti g ati ve me tho ds e mpl oye d s ho uld be the le a st i ntr

us ive me ans re a so na

bly ava ila ble to verify or dispel the off

icer ’s suspicion in a short per iod of time.”). 27 exit the car. While one of the m en opened the hoo d and began loo king inside, Lindsey and the other two m en wa lked toward the convenience store. N either T ie rn ey nor a ny one e lse obs er

ve d anythi ng s uspi ci ous or out of the or din ar

y in the ir a ct ion s, nor

sawa ny bul ge s or oth er ind ic iathat the m enw er e carr y ing w ea pons . N one the le ss, w ith out sto ppi ng t o a sk any

que sti ons or

w ai tin g to obse rv e an y

of the m en ’ s a ct ion s or

be ha vio r, T ie rn ey

j um pe d ou t of

his c ar w ith h i s s h o t g u n d r a w n , ye l l i n g a tt h e me n t o g e td o w n o n t h e g r o u n d . A tt h e s a me tim e, se ve n othe r of

fi ce rs in fi ve or

six se parate ve hic le s surr ound ed the m en , li ke wis e y el li ng at t he m

to ge t d own wit h t he ir we ap on s d rawn an d p oi nt ed . U lti m at el y , e igh t of

fi ce rs dr ewthe ir

w ea pons a nd d et ai ne d L ind se y a nd h is c o mp a n i o n s i n h a n d c u f

f s f o r ap p r o x i mat e l y 4 5 mi n u t e s b e f o r e “ f o rmal l y” 3 428

ar re sti ng L ind se y

a nd r el ea sin g th e oth er

thr ee m en . T his is not

the kin d of

“ inv es tig at ion ” co nte m

pla te d by the S upr em e Co urt i n Whit e an d T er ry . T he of fi ce rs ’ a ct ion s m ad e cl ear tha t the put at ive T er ry sto p w as not

de sig ne d to qui ck ly c onf irm the ir sus pic ion s of

L ind se y ’ s dange ro usne ss. T o th e co ntr ar y , the of fi ce rs ha d a lr ea dy

r ea ch ed that c onc lus ionba se d m er el y on the a nony

m ous an d co m ple te ly unr el ia ble ti p. Inthi s c as e, ne ith er

the ti p no r the f

ac t tha t the re w er e ope n in ve sti ga tio ns of bank robberies provid ed rea sonable su spicion sufficient to j ustify any seizure. It is c er ta inl y pos sib le that i f the of

fi ce rs ha d in ve sti ga te d th e tip f urthe r, the y

m igh t ha ve pe rs ona lly

obs er ve d su spi ci ous be ha vio r giv ing r ise to the r ea sona ble sus pic ionne ed ed

f or aT er ry sto p, w hic h m igh t the n have le d to the pr oba ble c au se ne ed ed f or a n arr es t. T he y

did not , how ev er , a nd w e cannot r etro ac tiv el y

f ind re as ona ble sus pic ionw he re non e ex ist ed . Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt.