## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2238 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ERR I CK L. B UL LOC K, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 1:09- cr-10- TLS

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngman n, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 28, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 1, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd S YKESa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Derr i ck Bu l l ockpl eaded gui l ty t o p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s t r ib u t e a tl e a s tfi v e g r a ms b u t le ss th an fifty gra m s o f co c ain e b as e (“ c ra c k” ) in vio lat ion of 21 U .S .C

. § 8 41 (a)( 1). H is p lea w as co n d iti oned on hi s abi l i ty to appeal the dist ri ct c ourt’s d eni al o f hi s mot i o n t o s up pr e s s e v i de nc e o f the c ra ck that led to h is c o n viction. T he even ts giving ri se to B ullock’s2 N o. 10

- 2238 arrest beg an w he n D etec tive John G reen lee ofthe Fort W ay n e P olic e D ep a rt m en t re c eiv ed an an on ym ou s t ip th ats o m eo ne b y the na m e o f“Q uick” was s el l i ng co ca i ne fr o m a r es i den ce o n Eucl id St r ee t. Ba se d o n the i n f o r m at ion p ro vid ed by th e t ip st er , G re en lee w as ab le to deter m i ne the address o f the re si dence and that “Qu i ck ” was Bul l o ck

. Gr ee nl ee b egan su r ve i l l an ce o fthe re si dence and cor ro bor ate d the t i p by obser vi ng Bull ock l ea vingthe r es iden ce o n s ev er alo cc as i o ns a nd e ng ag i ng in ac tiv ity ind ica tiv e o f d ru g d ea l i n g . A rm ed w ith th is i nf o r m at i o n, Gr ee nl ee o bt aine d a war r an t to s ea r chthe Eu cl i d Str eetaddress

. P rior to ex ec u tio n of th e w a r r a n t, d u rin g p re -ra id su r ve i l l an ce , Gr een l ee o bs er ve d Bul l o ckl ea vingthe r es i den ce i n a v eh i cl e d riven byS ab r i na W i l he l m , the l ess ee ofthe r esidence. Gree nl ee w as aw ar e that W i l helm d id no t ha ve a v al i d dr i ve r ’ s l i ce ns e, s o he i nstr ucted unifor m ed offic er s t o sto p the v ehi cl e. Offi ce r s m ade the s to p, t r an spo r te d B ull o ckb ac kt o the re sid en c e, an d d et ain ed h im in t h e s q u ad ca r w h ile t h ey ex ec u te d th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t. U p on find in g m ar ij u an a in p l a i n v iew on th e d in in g ro om ta b le in th e re sid en c e, alo n g w ith sa n d w ich ba gg ies co n ta in in g a sm all am ou n t o f cr ac k a n d a sc ale i n a n o th er p ar t o f th e re sidence, o ffi cer s a rr est ed Bull ockf orvisi ti ng a com m on nuis ance und erI nd i ana Code § 35-4 8- 4- 13( a)
. Bull ockwas tak en to the pol i ce s tat ion w here a sea rch ofhi s per son re veal ed si xteen ind i vi du al l y wrapped baggi es ofcr ack. On app eal, Bull ockcl ai m s th at the cra ck w as obt ai ned as th e r e s u lt of a n u n law fu l d et en tio n w ith ou t re as on ab leN o. 10

- 2238 3 suspi ci on a nd subse quent unla w ful ar re st w i thout proba

ble cau se i n v i o l at i o n o fthe F o ur thAm en dm en t. The dist ri ct c ourt di sag re ed and f ound that there was re aso nabl e su spi ci o n t o de ta i n Bul l o ck dur i ngthe s ea r ch, r ely i ngo n M ich iga n v . Sum m ers , 452 U
. S. 692 (1981), w he re th e Cou r t he l d that pol i ce l awful l y de ta i ne d the d efend an t (w ho w as leaving his residen ce as offi cers appr o ac he d) w hile the y e xe cut ed a va l i d s ea r chwar r an t ofthe re si dence. T he di str i ct c ourtfurtherf ound that probabl e ca use e xi ste d to ar re st Bu l loc k f orvi si ti ng a com m on n uisan ce u nd er I nd iana law after offi cers f ound m ar ij uana in p lain vi ew and other evi dence of m o r e wi des pr ea d, c o nt i nuo us , a nd r ec ur r en t dr ug ac ti vi tywi th i n the r es i den ce . W e affi r m . Bul l o ck ’s de te nti o n was l awfulunde r the p rin ci pl es s etf o r thi n Terry v. O hio , 39 2 U.S

. 1 ( 1968 ) , and f orsi m i l arrea so ns was j us tified u nd er Su m m ers . W e a l so fi nd thathi s s ubsequent a rr estwas supp or ted bypro babl e ca use.

I. De t e c t i v e Gr e e n l e e , wh o h a s b e e n i n th e V i c e a nd N ar cot i cs Di vi si on f orel eve n years , te sti fi ed that on N ove m ber3, 2 00 8, he r ecei ved an a nonym ous t i p that ani ndi vi dualus i ngthe na m e “Qu i ck ” was s el l i ng na rco ti cs o uto fa ho us e o n Euc l i d S tr ee t. The a no nym ous cal l er had purpor tedl y been to the h ou se , had spoke n w i th “Qui ck” on sever alo ccasi ons, and w as a wa r e tha t “ Qu i c k ” wa s s e l l i ng c o c a i ne f r o m tha t l oca ti o n. The c al l erdi d n ot k no w the a ddr es s o fthe4 N o. 10

- 2238 h ou se , bu t h e d es c rib ed i t t o G re en lee , in for m ed h im wha t s i d e o f th e s t r e e t i t wa s o n, a n d th a t r e d a n d b l ue chai rs were out f ro nt. Because ne i therGree nl ee noro thero ffi cer s had w or ked with the c al l erbefor e, Gree nl ee too k e ff or ts to corr obo ra te the c al l er ’ s info rm ati on. Through the pol i ce departm ent’ s co m pu tersy ste m , Gree nl ee disc ove re d that “Quick ” was Derr i ck Bu lloc k; Gree nl ee al so tes ti fi ed th a th e h a d p r i o r kn o wl e d g e th a t a s u b j e c tb y th e n a me ofDerr i ck Bu l l ockused the ni cknam e “ Qu i ck. ” Gre en lee was a l so abl e to deter m i ne tha t th e addr es s o fthe h ou se d es c rib e d b y t h e c alle r w as 28 15 E u c lid Str ee t in For t W ayne, I nd i ana. G reen le e began surve il li ng the resid en ce. Offi cers l at erl ea r ne d tha t th e r es i den ce was l ea se d b y S ab r i na W ilh elm , bu t B u lloc k w as th e m ain ta rg et of t h eir inv es tigat i on. A l though di sputed evi dence w as i ntro du ced d uri ngthe mot i o n t o s uppr es s he ar i ng, the di st r i ctc o urt d i d n o tfi n d th a tB u l l o c kl i v e d th e r e w i th W i l h e l m. Ra th er, the t wo wer e dat i ng a nd Bul l o ckv i si te d the re sid ence. Between N ove m ber21 , 20 08, and Decem ber2, 2008 , Gree nl ee obs er ved Bu llock l eave the re si dence on f our occa si ons. On Nov embe r 2 1, 2 00 8, Gr ee nl ee foll o wed Bul l o cka nd a fem al e ( w ho o ffi cer s l ate r lea rned was W i l hel m ) after they left the r esi dence i n a v ehi cl e. Bull ockwas dri vi ng. Offi ce r s st o pped the v eh i cl e an d a r r es te d Bul l o ck( th e ba si s f o r th e s t o p a n d a r r e s ti s n o te v i d e n tfr o m the re cor d). Duri ng the st op, o ffi cer s di sco ve re d that W i l hel m ’ s dri ver’ s li cense w as suspended

. Pursuant to aN o. 10

- 2238 5

s e a r c h i nc i de ntt o a r r e s t, o ffi c e r s f o un d $ 5 0 0 o n Bu l l ock, m o s t l y i n $ 2 0 de no mi na t i o ns . Gr e e nl e e t e s t i fi e d t hat B u lloc k lied a b o u t h is e m p loy m en t a n d th at h is in ve st igat i on i nd i cate d that Bul l ockwas unem p l oye d. Because Bul l o ckwas une m pl o y ed an d ha d a sign i fi ca nta m o unt of c as h in s m all d en om i n a t i on s, G re en lee , ba se d on h is tr ai ni ng and expe rie nce, bel i eve d that the m oneywas o bt aine d f r o m dr ug sa l es . N o dr ug s wer e f ou nd du r i ng th e se ar ch

. Greenl ee next o bser ved Bull ockl eave the re si dence som eti m e be tw een N ove m ber21 and Decem ber1. Because he was hel ping w i th ano theri nvest i gat i on, Gree nl ee wa s u n a b l e t o f o l l o w B u l l o c k o n th a to c c a s i o n . O n D e c e mbe r 1 , Gr ee nl ee a g ain f oll ow ed Bul l o cka fte r o bs er ving h im lea ve th e re sid en c e. B ot h tim es th at G re en lee foll o we d B ul l o ck

— on N ovem ber 21 an d De cem ber 1

— Greenl ee described Bull ock ’ s a cti vi ty as f ol l ows: [ T]he vehi cle m ake s s eve ra l sho rtst ops, so m eti m es meet i ngpe o pl e as the y wer e wai ting o n the porch. The perso n w oul d c om e off the porch, they w oul d turn i nto an a l l ey. The per son w oul d get i n th e b a c k s e a t o f the c a r, the pe r s o n wo ul d be i n the c art wo t o fi ve min ut es, a nd the n g eto ut o fthe v eh i cl e o n f o o t, s to p in the ho us e an d th e v eh icle w ou ld lea ve . The v eh i cl e woul d pul l up al o nga s i de st r ee t, the p erson w ou ld ap p roa c h i t, be at th e w ind ow f or a up to a m i nut e, a v er y s ho r t per i o d o ft i m e an d th en w alk aw ay . Th e v eh icle w ou ld lea ve ag ain
. Gr ee nl ee di d no t se e an yth ing pas s be twe enBul l o cka nd the o theri nd i vi d u als d uri ng the se shor t s tops. Based o n6 N o. 10

- 2238 hi s e xperi ence and tra i ni ng, Gree nl ee tes tified that s uch acti vi ty i s ind i cati ve ofdrug deal i ng. O n D ecem ber 2, 2008 , officers obtained a search w arra nt forthe Eu cl i d Str ee t ad dress to se ar ch f orev i dence of narco ti cs, w hi ch they proce eded to execute th at sa m e d a y . G re en lee w as res p on sib le for th e p re -ra id su r ve i l l an ce b efo r e ex ec utio n o fthe war r an t. The se ar c h w ar ra n t w as b as ed on th e an on ym ou s t ip an d Gr ee nl ee ’ s co r r o bo r at i o n o ftha t i nfor m at i o n. D u rin g p re -ra id su rv eilla n c e, G re en lee ob se rv ed W ilh elm , he r c h ild r e n , an d B u lloc k lea ve th e re sid en c e in a ve hi cl e; W i l he l m was dr i ving . Gr ee nl ee was a wa re from the N ovem be r 2 1 stop thatW ilhe lm ’s driver’s l i ce ns e was s us pen ded. Gr ee nl ee b eg anf o l l o wi ng the v ehi cl e. Because he w as n ot in uni f or m and had an und er cove r vehi cl e with no l i ghts orsi re ns, he r adio ed o th eruni f o r m ed o ffi ce r s, who were p o si ti o ne d ne arthe re si dence as parto fthe sea rch w ar ra nt t ea m , to m ake the s top. U ni f or m ed offi cer s J ean Gigl i, M ar k Deshai es, a nd Ang i e R e e d fo l l o we d the v ehi cl e a nd e xe c ut e d a st op ab ou t t en t o fifte en b loc ks fr om t h e re sid en c e (w ith in abou t three m inu tes of the c ar l eavin g the prem ises). Gr ee nl ee wai te d for W i l he l m a nd Bul l o ckt o g eto ut of the car; he then return ed t o t h e residen ce to p rep are f orexec uti on o fthe w ar ra nt. Gr e e nl e e i ns t r uc t e d G i g l i t o p l a c e Bu l l o c ki n c us t o dy o nc e he made th e st op . G reen l ee t es ti fi ed th athi s i nt en ti o n was t o b r i ngBul l o ckb ac kt o the r es i den ce dur i ng executi on o fthe sea rch w arrant
. Gig l i approa ched Bu l l ocko n the passen ge r’s si de ofthe vehi cl e a nd ReedN o. 10

- 2238 7 approached W i l hel m o n the dri ver ’ s si de. B ull ockte sti fi ed tha t a n o ffi c e r pu l l e d W i l he l m a s i de a nd s a i d, “I have a se ar chwarrant to se ar chy o urho us e. W he r e [ ar e] y o ur k ey s a t? ” W i l he l m r ea ch ed i n h erpur se a nd g av e th e offi cera keyto the house. Gree nl ee w as i nfo rm ed that a keywas obt ai ned du ri ng the tr affic sto p, but w as not sure i fi t ca m e fro m Bull ocko r W i l hel m . Offi cer s use d the k ey to gai n entr y into the r esi dence. Either Reed or Deshai es ask ed i f ther e w er e an y d rugs i n the house, and W i l hel m r esponded that th er e was m ar ij uana i n the dini ng r oo m . Gree nl ee tes ti fi ed that “fro m thi ngs that M s. W i l hel m had t ol d us at the t ra ffic st op , [w e] . . . w an te d to ke ep a h old of [B u lloc k] t o t alk to hi m furtherabo ut drugs that w er e in the house that she had t ol d us abo ut. ” Bul l ockwas handcu ffed , patte d dow n, and pla ced in the bac k o fGig l i ’ s s quad car . Bull ock was a dvi se d tha t he was b eingde ta i ne d f o r fur th eri nvest i gat i on. The o ffi cer s di d not fin d drugs i n the caro r on Bull ock( at that tim e). A bout ten o r tw enty m i nutes aft er t he st op ( the o ffi cer s co uld notte sti fy t o exact ti m es, bu t g ave approxi m ati ons) , Gig l i tr anspor ted Bul l o ckb ac kt o the r es i dence , wher e he s ta y ed i n the squad c a r . T he s e a r c h wa s u nd e r wa y . Wi l he l m r e mai ne d at th e s c en e o f th e t ra ffic s t o p w i th h er ch ild re n u n til th e i r f a th e r c o u l d c o me g e tth e m. Du ri ng the sear ch, o ffi cer s f ound a l i ghternext to a bo x th a t c o n t a i n e d ma r ij u a n a o n a t a b l e l o c a te d i n a centr alparto fthe house, a l ar ge bal l o f p l ast i c ba ggi es t h a t c on ta in ed sm all a m ou n ts of cr ac k c oc ain e, a g u n in the up sta i rs bedro om , and a dig i tal scal e. (B ull ock8 N o. 10

- 2238 does not chal l enge the j u sti fi cati on f orthe re si dence se ar ch

. ) Gr ee nl ee di d no t te st i fy wher e th e ba g gies a nd sc al e wer e f o und, b uti t appe ar s, fr o m the pho to g r aph s i ntro du ced at the he ar i ng, thatthey were i n a k i tchen cabi net. W i th r espectto the m ar ij uana, Gree nl ee tes ti fi ed tha t “ y o u c o ul d no t ha v e wa l k e d thr o ugh the house wi th o uts ee i ngthe dr ug s th er e i n pl ain v i ew, a s th e photos depicte d on the ki tchen t abl e. ” ( So m e o fthe w i tne sses d escribed the tab le as a “kitch en ” t a b le an d others as a “ di ni ngr o o m ” table bu t th eywer e al l t al k i ngabo ut th e s am e t ab le in a c en tr al a n d op en p a r t o f th e h ou se .) Pho to g r aph s ta k endur i ngthe s ea r chc onfi r m tha t th e m ar ij uana w as i n an open box on the tabl e. G re en l ee o pi ne d, b as ed o n h i s ex per i en ce a nd t r aini ng, tha t th e i tem s s ei zed duri ng the se ar ch w er e co nsi ste nt with both d ru g u se a n d d ist rib u tio n . B u lloc k re m ain ed atth e re sidence f orabo ut tw enty m i nutes b ef or e he w as tr anspor ted to t h e st at ion an d ch ar ge d w ith vis itin g a co m m on n u isance und erInd i ana Code § 35- 48- 4- 13( a)
. W i l hel m was charg ed w i th m ai ntai ni ng a com m on nui sance und er I nd iana C od e § 35-48-4-13(b). A fter transp orting B ullock t o t h e po li ce stat ion, officers conducted a s tr i p s ea rch ofBull ockand dis cove re d si xt ee n i ndi vi dual lywra pped ba g g i es o fc r ac kc o ca i ne co nc e a l e d “ i n” hi s b ut t o c k s . ( Th e r e c o r d i s no t c l e a r how probing a sea rch w as re quir ed to l oca te the c ra ck coca i ne. Obvi ousl y, the ear l i erpat-d ow n di d not r eve althe drugs. Bu l l ock, however, does notco m pla i n abo ut the conduct o fthe s ta ti o n ho us e se ar ch

. ) The se dr ug s pr o vi ded th e bas is for th e govern m en t’s ind ictm en t an d B u ll ock’s pl e a o fg ui l t y f o r kno wi ng l y p o s s e s s i ngc r a c kwi th inten t to distribu te in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841(a)( 1).N o. 10

- 2238 9 II. B u l l o c kmo v e d t o s up pr e s s th e c r a c kf o u n d o n h i m, ar g ui ngtha t o ffi cers unl awful l y de ta i ne d hi m dur i ng th e se a r c h a n d l a c k e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s th i m. A fter holding an evid en tiary hearing, the d is t rict court foun d Bu ll ock’s d eten tion law ful un d er Mi c h ig a n v . S u mm e rs , 452 U .S. 69 2 (1 98 1), ev en th ou gh h e w as a vis ito r o f th e r e s i d e n c e a n d wa s d e t a i n e d a ft e r l e a v i n g t he prem i ses . The di str i ct c ourtr ea so n ed that Bu l l ockwas pul l ed o ve r a s hort di st an ce fr o m the r es i den ce a nd w as th e s u b j ec t o f t h e o ffice rs ’ inv es tig at ion ; th u s, h is det en ti o n was b as ed o n the o ffi ce r s’ a r ti cul ab l e an d in d ivid u aliz e d s u sp icio n th at B u lloc k w as en ga ge d in cri m i na l a ct i vi tyi n c o nne ct i o n wi ththe r es i den ce . The cou rt also reason ed that up o n d iscovering th at a w arra nt had bee n i ssued, Bullock beca m e a fl i ght r i sk. Further, the cour t f ound that there w as p ro babl e ca use to ar re st B ull ockf orvi si ti ng a com m on nui sance after o ff i ce r s f o u n d ma r ij u a n a i n th e r e s i d e n c e i n p l a i n v i e w, al ong w i th bag gi es ( conta i ni ng a sm al l am ount o fcr ack) and a s c a l e i n a no the r l o c a t i o n. T he c o ur te xp l a i ne d that a com m on-sen se view of th e everyd ay reali ties ofl ife w oul d sugge st to pol i ce that Bul l ockwas aware that W ilh elm u se d d ru gs ins id e h er h om e. B u lloc k a p p ea ls these fi nd i ngs. On a m oti on t o supp re ss, we re vi ew quest ion s ofl aw d e n ov o a n d qu es tio n s o f fac t fo r c lea r er ro r. U nited Sta tes v. Cl i nt on , 5 91 F.3d 96 8, 97 1 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ), cert. denied , 131 S. C t. 246 ( Oct. 4, 20 10)
. W here ther e a re m i xed questio n s o f law an d fac t, o u r re vie w is d e n ov o. U nited Sta tes10 N o. 10

- 2238

v . Bu r n s i de, 5 88 F. 3d 511, 51 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. U nd ercl ear error r ev i ew, “ we wi l l no t o ve r tu r n the di st r i ctc o ur t’s f ac tu alfi ndi ng s unl es s l eft wi tha de fi ni te a nd fi r m c o nv i c t i o n tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur twa s mi s t a k en. ” Cli nt on , 59 1 F. 3d at 971 ( quotati on o m i tte d). W e g i ve speci aldefer ence to th e d ist ric t cou rt ’s c re d ibilit y d et er m in at ion s. Bur ns i de, 588 F. 3d at 517.

A . Sei zure ofBull ock B u lloc k d oe s n otd isp u te t h a t t h e o ffice rs h ad p ro b ab le cause to sto p W i l hel m f ordri vi ng o n a s uspend ed l i cense. He a r g u e s , th o u g h, th a ta ft e r o ffi ce r s p a t t e d h i m d o wn and sear ched the v ehi cl e, he s h oul d have be en fre e t o l eave the scene becau se t hey ha d no r eas onabl e s uspici on to con tinu e d e t a ining him w hile they searc he d W ilhe lm ’s re si dence. H e had al re ady le ft the pre m i ses o fthe sea rch and w as not l i vi n g at t he r esi dence, but w as m er el y a vi s i t o r . Ac c o r di ng l y, Bu l l o c kc o nt e nd s tha th i s de t e nt i on was no t pr o perunde r the pr i nc i pl es s etf o r thi n Su m m ers . W e d isagree. B ullock’s app roach o v e rlooks the au th ority tha t l a w en forcem en t had to det ain him un d er Terry base d on i nfo rm ati on the pol i ce pos ses sed a t th e t i m e o f th e s to p . B u lloc k w as th e t a r g e t o f th e o ffice rs ’ inv es tigat i on a nd hi s a sso ci ati on w ith the re si dence l ed to a fi nd i ng o fprobabl e ca use f orthe sea rch w ar ra nt. Bas ed o n the i nf o r m at i o n obt aine d fr o m the a no ny m o us tipst er and Gre e n le e’s sub seq ue nt i nv estigation, offi cers had an ar ti cul abl e ba si s f orsusp ec ti ng tha t Bul l ockwas en gaged i n d r u g activity from that residen ce. Furth er, o nc e W i l he l m i nf o r m ed o ffi ce r s th ats he ha d m ar ij ua naN o. 10

- 2238 11 i n herdi ni ng r oo m , they had re aso nabl e s uspici on t o bel i eve thatBull ockwas vi si ti ng a com m on nui sance. Offi ce r s, the r efo r e, c ou ld det ain Bul l o ckdur i ngthe se ar ch war r an t ev entho ug h h e was no t l i vinga t th e E u c lid Stree t ad d ress an d had l eft the p rem ises before th e search w as u nd erw ay. Fu rthe r, w he n o fficers st o p p ed th e v eh icle , th ey rea so n ab ly in for m ed W ilh elm o fthe s earc h war r an t so the y c o ul d o bt ain k ey s to the r es i den ce . At tha t ti m e, Bul l o ck w as made awar e o fthe war r an t an d o ffi ce r s ha d an i nt er es t i n preve nt i ng Bu l l ock ’ s fl i ght in the eve nt i ncri m in at in g e vi dence w as foun d du ring the sea rch and i n m inim izi n g r isk ofharm to the o ffi cer s. The l ength ofdeten tio n

— thi rty t o f or ty m i nutes

— w as l i m i te d to the l eg i ti m at e ne eds ofthe offi ce r s i n c o nduc ting furtheri nvest i gat i on. The m anne r ofdetent i on

—be i ng hand cuffed, pla ced i n the back of a squad c ar, an d tr ansport ed to the re si dence

— w hi l e undoubtedl y intrusi ve, w as not unreas onabl e under these ci rcum sta nces. Even if th e m an ne r of d eten tion w as too intru siv e , officers wer e r ea so nabl e i n d etai ni ngBul l o ckdur i ngthe s ea r ch, and he w oul d have inevi tably been ar re ste d (e i therat the s cene of th e t ra ffi c st op oratthe re si dence) after offi cer s l oca ted the contraband i n the house. Bull ock does n o tdi s pu t e tha ta ft e r b e i nga r r e s t e d a nd t ake n i nto custo dy , t h e crac k o n hi s per son w oul d have be en di s c o v e r e d. F o r many o fthe s ame r ea so ns , we fi nd Bul l o ck’s det en tion also j us tified u nd er Su m m ers . G i v e n th e f a c t s kno wn to the o ffi cer s a t the ti m e, theyh ad t h e authori ty to12 N o. 10

- 2238 detai n Bull ockduri ng executi on o fthe sea rch w ar ra nt; he was the subj ect o f t he o ffi cer s’ i nvest i gat i on, had j ust left th e p re m i s e s, w as p u lled ov er as so on as rea so n ab ly p r a c t i c a b l e , a n d o n c e i n f o r me d o fth e wa r r a n t, b e c a me a fl ight risk an d p osed a p oten tial d an ger to t h e officers conduct i ng the se ar ch. The detent i on o fBull ockwas w ar ra nted beca use the add i ti onali ntrusi on ca used by detenti on was sl i ght a nd the j usti fi cati ons w er e s ubst an tia l.

1. In ve s tiga tive D ete n tion u n d er Terry The go ver nm ent a rgues th at r eas onabl e s uspici on un d er Terryex ist ed to d et a i n B u lloc k. W e a gr ee . “A lth ou gh an o ffi cerdoes notneed probabl e ca use t o conduct a n investi gat or y s top, the bri efdetent i on m ust b e b as ed onrea so n ab le s u s p i c ion th at th e s to p p ed ind ivi du alhas or is abo ut to co m m i t a cr i m e. ” U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 579 F.3d 835 , 838 (7th C ir. 2009). W he n d eterm ining ifseizure ex ceed s the bou nd s of Terry, th e cou rt s ho ul d a s k : “ ( 1 ) whe the r the po l i c e we r e a wa r e o f sp ec ific a n d art icu lab le fa c t s g ivin g ris e t o re as on ab le suspi ci on; and ( 2) wh etherthe degre e o fi ntrusi on was re aso nably re lated to the know n f acts
. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Til m on , 19 F. 3d 1221, 1224 (7th C ir. 1994). An i nv es ti g at o r y s to p i s pr o per“ i fthe o ffi ce r making the s t o p i s ‘ a b l e t o po i nt t o s pe c i fi c a nd a r t i c ul a b l e f acts ’ that gi ve ri se to a r eas onabl e su sp icio n ofcr i m i nal act i vi ty. ” Id. at 1224 ( quoti ng Terry, 3 92 U. S

. a t 21

- 22 )
. “ Re as o nabl e s uspici on i s a l ower thres hol d than pro babl e ca use and does no t dealwith har d cer tai nti es, but w i th pro ba-N o. 10

- 2238 13 bi l i ti es. ” B o o k er, 57 9 F.3d at 83 9 (qu ot at ion om itt ed ). It “r eq u ire s m o r e t h an a h u n c h bu t le ss th an p ro b ab le ca us e an d c o ns i der abl y l es s th anpr epo nde r an ce o fthe evi dence. ” G entry v. Sev ier, 597 F .3 d 8 3 8 , 845 (7th C ir. 20 10 ) (q u ot at ion s o m i t t e d ) . B ec au se “[r]e as on ab le su spi ci on i s a l ess dem anding sta nd ar d than pro b ab le cause[ , ]
. . . [ i t] can ar i se f ro m info rm ati on that i s l ess re l i abl e . . . . ” A labam a v. White, 496 U
. S. 325, 330 (1990 ). The re aso nabl eness o f t h e s top i s ba sed o n an o bj ecti ve s t a n d a r d : “ wo u l d th e f a c t s a v a i l a b l e t o th e o ffi c e r a t th e m om ent o fthe sei zure o r the s ear ch ‘ w ar ra nt a m an o f re aso nabl e ca uti on in the be l i ef’ thatthe acti on t ake n w as appropri ate ?” Til m on , 1 9 F
. 3d at 12 24 ( quo ting Terry, 39 2 U.S

. at22 )
. “W hen deter m i ni ng wh et h er an o ffi ce r ha d r ea sonab l e su spi ci o n, c o ur ts e xa m i ne the to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s kno wn to the offi cer atthe tim e o fthe sto p, i ncl ud i ng the exper i ence ofthe offi cer an d th e b eh av ior a n d ch ar ac te ris tic s o f th e s u sp ec t .” U nited Sta tes v. La w shea , 461 F.3d 857, 859 (7th C ir. 2006). The o ffi ce r ’ s su bj ec ti ve mot i va ti o ns f o r s to p pi nga nd detai ni ng a suspect ar e no t r elev an t to the r eas onabl eness i nquir y. U nite d Sta tes v. B arnet t, 50 5 F
. 3d 637, 64 0 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); see also U nited Sta tes v
. V a n D reel , 15 5 F. 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( s ubj e c t i v e i nt e nt i o ns p l ay no role i n Fou rth A m en d m en t ana lysi s). T he officers had rea s ona ble susp ici on of Bu ll ock’s cri m i nal act i vi ty and coul d detai n h im b riefl y whil e they i nv es ti g at ed th ei r s us pi ci o n, i
. e. , whi l e th eys ea r ch ed th e Eucl i d S tr ee t r esi den ce . Gr ee nl ee r ec ei ve d a n a no ny m o us ti p that an i nd i vi du al u si ng the nam e “ Qu i ck” w as14 N o. 10

- 2238

se l l i ngna r co ti cs o uto fa ho us e o n Euc l i d S tr ee t. The anonym ous c al l erhad purport edl y been to the ho use, had spoke n w i th “Qui ck”, and w as aw ar e that “ Qu i ck” w as sel l i ng co cai ne fro m thatl oca ti on. T h e cal l erdi d not know the add re ss of the house, but described it to Gr eenlee, i nf o r m ed hi m whats i de o fthe s tr ee t i t was o n, and that r ed and bl ue chai rs were out fro nt. The ano nym ous t i p al one w oul d not j usti fy a Te r ry st op . Se e, e . g. , Fl or i da v

. J
. L. , 52 9 U.S

. 26 6, 27 0- 71 ( 2000 ) (h old in g that an ano nym ous t i p, witho u t m or e, was not suffi ci ent t o j u st ify a n offic er ’s s to p an d frisk ); s e eals o Unit e d S t at e s v. Robi ns on , 5 37F
. 3d 79 8, 8 02 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( an ony m o us sour ces ar e l ess r el i abl e be cause offi cer s “ h av e no way to ho l d the s o ur ce r es po ns ibl e i fthe i nf o r m at i o n tur ns o utt o b e f a b r i c a t e d” )
. Ho we v e r, a n a no ny mous t i p, ad eq u at ely c or ro b or at ed , m ay p ro vid e su fficie n t ind icia o fr el iab i l i tyt o pr o vi de r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n f o r a n i nve st iga to ry st op . J
. L. , 52 9 U.S

. at27 0. A fterrecei vi ng the anonym ous ti p, Gree nl ee und er too k eff or ts to cor ro bor ate the cal l er ’ s info rm ati on. Greenl ee i denti fi ed “Quick ” a s Bul l ockthr ough the p olic e d epart
m en t’ s c o mpu t e r s y s t e m, l o c a t e d th e a d d r e s s o ft he re si de n c e based o n the cal l er ’ s descr i pti on, o bser ved Bul l o ckl ea ve the r es i den ce o n f o ur oc ca si o ns dur i ng th e c o u r s e o f e l e v e n d a y s , a n d o b s e r v e d B u l l o c k o n t wo o cc as i o ns en g ag e i n be ha vi o r co ns i st en t wi th a dr ug cour i ero r dist ributorupon l eavi n g the r esi dence. S pec ifica lly, G re e n lee follow ed B u lloc k a n d ob se rv ed h im en ga ge in s h o r t s ta y v isit s a t v ar iou s re sid en c es ; in d ivi du al s would g et i nto Bu l l ock ’ s ca r f ortwo to fi ve m i nutes o r they w oul d app ro ach the ve hi cl e’ s window f orN o. 10

- 2238 15

a s hor t per i od ( up to a m i nute) and then w al k a w ay. Based on his tr ai ni ng and exper i ence, Gree nl ee tes ti fi ed that such ac tio n s w er e in d ica tiv e o f d ru g d ea lin g. Se e, e . g. , Bur ns i de, 588 F. 3d at 518 ( “I n f or m i ng a reas onable bel i efthata drug tr ansac tio n occ urr ed, [ pol i ce] were perm i tte d to vi ew the e ve nt s thro ug h the pr i sm o fthe i r t r aini nga nd ex p er ien c e.” ); U n i ted S ta tes v. Fun ch es , 32 7 F
. 3d 582, 58 4, 58 6-8 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( Drug Enfo rce m ent Ad m i ni str ati on ( “DEA”) a g en ts ha d pr o babl e ca us e to beli ev e th atdr ug tr an sa c tio n h ad oc c u rr e d b as ed on th eir ex p er ien c e in narco ti cs e nfo rce m ent; ag ents obs er ved the ex change of shopping bags und er ci rcum sta nces they recogni zed as ha ving com m on ch aract eristi cs of dru g trans action s). On N ove m ber21 , aftero bser vi ng the se shor t- sta y vi si ts, o ffi cer s pul l ed ove r Bu l l ockand , d uri ng a se ar chi nc i den t to a r r es t, f o und $ 500 on hi s per so n, m ost l y i n $ 20 de no m i na ti o ns . Upon i nv es ti g at i o n, Gr e e nl e e di s c o v e r e d tha tBu l l o c kwa s u ne mpl o y e d. G re en lee te st ified th at b a s e d on h is t ra in in g a n d ex p er ience, he b el i eve d the ca sh f ound o n B ull ockwas fro m dr ugsa l es ev entho ug h n o dr ug s wer e f o und. “ I n f o r m i ng hi s su spi ci o ns , [ Gr ee nl ee ] was en tit l ed to a ss es s th e ci rcum sta nces an d the def endant[’ s] behav i ori n l i ght o f hi s e xperi ence as a pol i ce o ffi cerand hi s know l edge o f drug co uri erac tiv ity. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fi nke, 85 F. 3d 1275 , 12 80 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ). A lth ou g h a w a d of ca sh is n otits elf su spi ci o us , i t be comes s us pi ci o us whenf o und in the “hands ofa perso n w ho the pol i ce hav e g oo d rea son to bel i eve j ust r ecei ved it i n exchange f ora del i ver y o f i l l ega l drugs[

. ] ” U nited Sta t e s v. C erva ntes , 19 F. 3d 1151 , 1153 ( 7th Cir. 1994).16 N o. 10

- 2238 Eve n tho ug h Gr ee nl ee di d no t o bs er ve dr ug - dea l i ng activi ty ta k i ng p lace at the residen ce, Bu ll ock’s s u s p i c i o u s a c t i vi t y u p o n l e a v i n gth e r e s i d e n c e o n t wo occa si ons, i ncl ud i ng the di scover y o fa re l ati vel y l ar ge su m o fmone y o n Bul l o ck, c o r r o bor at ed th e an o ny m o us cal l er ’ s t i p ofdrug- d eal i ng ac ti vi ty. I n f act, i t was Bu l l ock ’ s a sso ci ati on with the Eu cl i d Str eet r esi dence tha t l e d t o the s e a r c h wa r r a nt
. At the t i m e o fthe s t o p, o ffi ce r s ha d r ea so nabl e su spi ci on thatBul l o ckwas a nd h ad be en en ga ge d in c rim in al a c tiv ity an d co u ld d et a in h im for a b rie f p er iod u p on fu rt h er inv es tig at ion
. See, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vega , 7 2 F.3 d 507, 51 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( fi nd i ng r ea so nabl e s uspici on wh er e o ffi cer s knew that 50 0 k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a i ne wa s i n g a r a g e , a nd they obs er ved defendant ente r the g ar age , st ay f orte n m i nutes a nd dri ve out); U n ited S ta tes v. C ha idez , 91 9 F
. 2d 1193 , 11 99 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( re aso nabl e s uspici on e xi ste d w here ag en ts recei ved ti p f ro m r el i abl e info rm ant that d e fe n d a n tw a s maj o r h e r o i n d e a l e r, d e fe n d a n t ’ s n a me cam e u p i n other drug i nvest i gat i ons, and pol i ce obs er ved defendant dri vi ng ev as i vel y, enga gi ng i n br i ef and fur ti ve m eet i ngs, s curr yi ng i n and out o fr est aurant s k no wn to be f r eque nt ed bydr ugde al er s, a nd c ar r y i ng a p las tic ba g u se d in t h e d ru g t ra d e); see also U nited States v . S o phie, 90 0 F
. 2d 1064, 10 72- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90) (find ing high er stan d ard of p robab le cau se m et w he re offi cers observ ed known d rug deal erm ake and re cei ve pho ne c al l s an d a m ess ag e o n h i s pag erb efo r e m ee ting wi th d e fe n d a n tf o r ab o u t3 0 s e c o n d s , d u r i n gw h i c h t i me they goti n sid e d efendant’s carand passed a to te bag bac k and f orth).N o. 10

- 2238 17

I n f ac t, a good a rg um en tc oul d have be enas s er t ed thatthe 1 offi c er s ha d pro bable c aus e t o a rr es tBul l oc k f or drug di s t ribu- (co n tin u ed ...) B u lloc k c on te n d s t h at for offic er s t o d et ai n h im pu rs uant to Terrythe r e m us t be “ a ba si s f o r b el i ev i ng that the per son i s e ngaging ( prese nt te nse) i n cr i m i nal acti vi ty ori s about to be engag ed ( future tense ) i n cr i m i nal ac ti vi ty
. ” Re pl y Br
. 3
. Howev er, o ffi ce r s ca n s to p a nd det ain a s us pec t f o r r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n tha t th e su sp ec t h as en ga ge d in a co m p l e t e d felon y. U nited Sta tes v. Hensley, 46 9 U.S

. 22 1, 22 9 ( 1985 ) ( “[I]f p olice have a re as on ab le su sp icio n, gr ou n d ed in sp ec ific a n d art icu lab le fac ts, that a perso n they encounter w as i nvol ved i n . . . a com ple ted fel ony, then a Terry sto p m ay be m ade to in ve st iga te th at su sp icio n .”); B o o k er, 57 9 F
. 3d at 838- 39 (re as on ab le s u sp i c ion ex ist ed to st op an d d et ain d efend ant who w as suspecte d ofhavi ng co m m i tte d batt ery). Whi l e i ti s t r u e th a td ur i ng th e s t o p a n d p a t
- d o wn offi cer s di d not fi nd evi dence of ongo i ng cr i m i nal act i vi ty, W i lh elm to l d them thatshe had m ar ij uana i n her h ou se in t h e d in in g ro om , pr ov i d i n g fu rth er rea so n ab le suspi c i o n t o de t a i n Bu l l o c kdu r i ngthe s e a r c h. Bu l l ock had j ust l eft the r esi dence and had been there o n at lea st th re e p rior oc c as ion s. T h e o ffic e r s co u ld rea so n ab ly su sp ect th at he w as a w a r e of the m arij ua na . Th e officers ther ef or e had thi s info rm ati on , a l ong w i th the i r re aso nabl e s us pi ci o n tha t Bul l o ckwas a dr ugde al era nd ha d s o l d dr ug s o n pr evi ou s o cc as i o ns upo n l ea vingthe re si dence. 118 N o. 10

- 2238

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 t i on e v e n b e f o r e th e s t o p b a s e d o n th e s a me i n f o r mat i on of fic ers used to obtain the searc h w arrantf or the re si dence. Even thoughoffi c er s ultim atel y a rr es t ed Bul l oc k f or vi s i t i ng a c omm on nu i s a nc e , n otdr ug di s t r ibu t i on, the i r “ s ub j e c t i ve rea son f or m ak i n g the a rrest n eed no t be the crim ina l offen se as to w hich the know n f act s prov ide probab le caus e. ” D eve npeck v. A l f ord , 543 U.S

. 146, 153- 56 ( 2004) ; seea lso U n i te d S tat es v . Tin n ie, N o. 09- 4082, 2011 W L 135715, at * 3 ( 7th Cir . Ja n . 18, 2 0 1 1 ) (sta t i n g t h a t w h en ju d g in g th e c o n sti tu tio n a lit y o f a s ea rc h o r seizure , “we ar e notl i m i t ed t o whatthe s t oppi ng offi c ers ays or t o e vi denc e ofhi s subj ec t i ve ra t i ona l e” ) ( c i t at i on om itted ). F u rth er, w he n W ilhelm ad m itted d u ring the tra ffic st op that s he had m arij uana in her dining room , the polic e m ay have had pro babl e c aus e t o ar re s t Bul l oc k f or the com m on nui s a n c e v i o l a t i o n . We d o n o ta dd r e s s th e s e i s s u e s th o u gh b eca u se the g ov ern m en t d id no t arg u e tha t there w as p ro b ab le cause to j usti fy the pre- se arch dete nti on, and so, i t has f orfeited tha t arg u m en t. W e a c kn ow led ge th at u n lik e in t h is c as e, th e p olic e in Hensley ha d be en unabl e to l o ca te th e su spe ct
. 46 9 U
. S. at2 29
. Buttha t di ffer en ce do es no t l es se n the g o ve r nm en t’ s st r o ngi nt er es t i n de ta i ni ngB ull o ckt o pr ev en t fl ight w hile th ey con d uc ted th eir searc h. Fu rthe r, Bu ll ock’s su sp ec te d d ru g-d ea lin g a c tiv ity w as n otco m p le t ed in the s ense that he was enga gi ng i n ongo i ng cr im inalbehavi orthatpose d an ongo i ng thr eatto the pu bl i c. The next quest ion i s whether the deg re e o fi ntrusi on was r ea so nabl y r el at ed to the know n fac ts
. “ The r ea so nablen es s of the st op m ay depend , i n part, o n the extent of the intrusi on. ” U nite d State s v. Ie nco , 182 F. 3d 517, 52 3 ( 7thN o. 10

- 2238 19 C i r . 1 9 9 9 )
. A Terryinv es ti gat i ve sto p i s “ a br i efdetent i on w h i c h g i ve s o ffice rs a c h an c e t o v er ify (or d isp el) w ellf o unde d s us pi ci o ns tha t a p ersonha s be en, i s, o r i s ab o ut t o b e e ng a g e d in c r i mi na l a c t i v i t y . ” Veg a , 7 2 F
. 3d at 515 ( quotati on o m i tte d). “F oran invest i gat i ve sto p base d o n r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n t o pa ss c o ns ti tu ti o na l must er, the i nvestigati on f ol l owing i t m ust be r eas onabl y r el ate d i n sco pe and du ra ti on t o the c i rcum stan c es t hat j usti fi ed the s top in the fi rs t instance so th at it i s a m i ni m al intru sion on th e ind ivi d ua l’ s Fourt h A m en d m en t interest s. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 30 F. 3d 774, 784 (7th Cir. 1994 ) ( ci ti ng U nit e d S t at e s v. Sh arpe, 47 0 U.S

. 65 7, 68 5- 86 ( 19 85 ) )
. W e us e a sl i di ng - sc al e appr o ac h whe n a ddr es sing th e re as on a b l e n e ss of an inv es tig at or y s to p . Til m on , 19 F. 3d at 1226
. “[ S] tops too i nt ru sive to be j usti fi ed by su sp ici on u nd er Terry, but sh o r t o f cus to di al ar r es t, are re aso nabl e w hen the degre e o fsuspi ci on i s a dequ ate in ligh t o f th e d e g re e a n d th e d u ra tio n of re st ra in t.” C ha idez , 9 1 9 F
. 2 d a t1 1 9 8
. A Ter ry sto p base d on r easonab l e s uspici on ca n ri pen i nto a de f acto ar re st that m ust be b ase d on pro babl e ca use if it c ontinues too l ong or b ec om es u n re as on ab ly in tr u siv e. Robi ns on , 30 F. 3d at 784. The “detenti on m ust be t em p orar y a nd l astno l onge r th an i s nec ess ar y t o effectuat e the purpose o fthe sto p .” Flo rida v. R o yer, 46 0 U .S. 4 9 1 , 5 0 0 (1 98 3). T h er e is n o rig id ti m e lim it pla ced onTe r ry st o ps; “ co m m o n s en se a nd or d in ar y h u m a n ex p er ien c e m u st gov er n ov er rigid cri teri a. ” Sharpe, 4 70 U. S

. a t 68 5. W he n de te r m i ni ngthe reason ablen ess o f th e length of d eten tion, th e cou rt shoul d consi der the l aw enf or cem ent purpos es to be se r ve d b y the st o p, the ti m e r ea so nabl y ne ede d t o e ffec tu
-20 N o. 10

- 2238 at e t h os e p u rp os es , an d w h et h er th e p olic e d ilige n tly p u rs u ed th eir inv es tig at ion
. Id. at68 5- 87. Befo re being take n to the pol i ce s tat i on, Bull ockwas d et ain ed for t h irt y t o for ty m in u t e s . T h e p olic e d ilige n tly p urs ue d their i nv estigation in ex ecu ting th e s earch w arra nt. Bull ockwas tak en to the re si dence te n to twenty m i nutes a fterthe sto p and w hen he a rr i ved , t h e s ear ch w as un d erw ay. W he n the searc h w as com p lete , of ficers tr an spo r te d Bul l o ckt o the s ta ti o n. Nothi ngi n the re cor d sugges ts that the o ffi cer s unnecessar i l y pr olonged the sea rch or acte d l ess th an dili gen tly. Bu ll ock’s detenti on wh i l e offi cer s invest i gat ed hi s s uspected cr i m i na l a ctivity was r ea so nabl e an d j us ti fi ed unde r the c irc u m st an c es . Se e, e . g. , Sharpe, 47 0 U.S

. at 6 87 ( tw entym i nut e del ay w ai tingf o r DEA ag en t to a r r i ve a nd i nve st iga te w as n otu n re as on ab le); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Adam s on , 441 F. 3d 513, 52 1 ( 7th C i r. 20 06) ( tw enty- fi ve m i nute del ay re aso nabl e t o i nvest i gat e whether defe nd an t was tak i ng part i n drug acti vi ty i n hote l ro om giv en num ber ofsubj ects and thei r re l uctance to re vealthei r nam es an d w hy the y w ere at m otel); Rob i ns on , 30 F. 3d at 784 ( tw en ty- m i nute dete nti on r eas onabl e whil e o ffi cer s questi oned suspect s about thei r i denti ti es and acti vi ti es, con tact ed oth er officers to inform th em of th e e n c o un ter, an d m ad e a nu m ber of call s to verify co-de fend an t’s id en tit y); Veg a , 72 F. 3d at 515-16 (sixty- tw o m i nute del ay w as re aso nabl e g i ven that defenda nt i ni ti al l y c onse nted to s e a r c h o fg a r a g e b utthe n c ha ng e d h i s mi nd a nd dr ugsn iffi ng do g w as called to ex am ine th e d efend an t’s car); cf. U nite d State s v. P lace, 4 6 2 U. S

. 6 9 6 , 7 0 9 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( ni netym i nute dete nti on o fl uggag e whil e pol i ce a rr angedN o. 10

- 2238 21 f ordog sni ffwas unreas onabl e where pol i ce di d not d i lige n tly p u rs u e in ve st iga tio n ); Ie nco , 1 8 2 F
. 3 d a t52 5 ( thi rty- m i nute dete nti on in lo cked s quad carwas to o l ong w here re aso nabl e suspi ci on w as w eakan d suspect s w ere not d an gerou s). W hetherBull ock ’ s sei zure am ounted to a de f acto ar re st when he was ha ndcu ff ed, pl ac ed i n the s qua d c ar, a nd tr anspor ted to the re si dence is a cl ose r questi on. A dm i tt e d ly, th e facts he re ap p roach th e ou ter bou nd aries of a perm i ssibl e Ter ry sto p. “S ubtl e, and perhaps t enuous, dist i ncti ons exi st between a Terryst op, a Ter ry sto p ra pidl y e vol vi ng i nto an a rres t a nd a de f acto arr es t.” Til m on , 1 9 F
. 3 d a t12 2 4
. P o l i c e r e s t r a i n tma y b e c o me so int ru siv e t h at, w h ile n otte c h n ica lly an “a rre st,” it b ec om es “t an ta m ou n t” to an arr es t re q u irin g p ro b ab le c au se . Id. ( ci ti ng D u n a w a y v . New Yo rk, 44 2 U.S

. 20 0, 21 2- 16 ( 1979 ) ). “Give n the ‘ endle ss var i ati ons i n the f acts and ci rcum stances, ’ ther e i s no ‘ l i tm us- paper t estf or deter m i ni ng w h en a sei zure exce eds the bounds ofan i nvest i gat i ve sto p’ a nd bec om es an ar re st. ” Id. ( quo ting R o yer, 4 60 U. S

. at 5 06)
. The que st i o n i s whethe r the o ffi c e r ’ s a c t i o n s w e r e r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r th e c i r c u msta nces and w hetherthe surr ounding ci rcum sta nces g av e r i se t o a justifi ab l e fea r f o r pe r so na l s afety o n the p ar t o f th e o ffice r. Jew et t v . An ders , 52 1 F
. 3d 818, 82 4 ( 7th C ir. 2008). W e ha ve pre vi o us l y f o und tha t us i nghandc uff s, pl ac i ng suspe c ts in p ol i ce c ar s, drawing w eapons, and other m eas ures of f or ce m or e t ra dit i onal l y a sso ci ate d w i th ar r es ts may be pr o perdur i nga n i nv es ti g at o r y de te n-22 N o. 10

- 2238 ti on, depend i ng o n the ci rcum sta nces. T i l m on , 19 F. 3d at 12 24

- 2 5 , 1 22 8; se e also U nite d State s v. Shoa ls , 47 8 F
. 3d 850, 85 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( sta ti ng tha t pol i ce o ffi cer s d o not conve rt Terrys to p i nt o ful l c us to di ala r r es t bydr awi ng th eir w e a p on s o r h an d c u ffin g t h e s u b j ec t, p ar tic u lar ly w h er e t h e s itu at ion is in h er en tly d an ge ro u s); C ha idez , 919 F. 2d at 1198

- 99 ( detenti on di d not tu rn in to ar re st eve n though agen ts d rew guns, to ok carke ys, ga ve M i r a nda w ar ni ngs, to ok one defe nd ant t o pol i ce v an to s i g n c o ns e nt
- t o - s e a r c h f o r m, a nd de t a i ne d d e fe nd a nts f o r t ent o fi fte enmin ut es duri ngs ea r cho fho us e; the intru sion w as less than that i nv olved i n an arrest). Give n that offi cer s were conducti ng a sea rc h fo r drugs, it w as rea so n ab le t o p lac e B u lloc k i n h an d c u ffs a n d in th e s q u ad ca r for th eir s afe ty w h ile th ey p u rs u ed th eir i nvest i gat i on. Even tho ugh offi cer s patt ed dow n Bull ock and did not dis cove r any w eapons, the offi cer s co uld t ake pr ec au ti o ns a g ains t po te nt i al l y v i o l en t be ha vi o r . Dr ug cr i m es a r e as so ci at ed wi th d ang er o us a nd v i o l en t be ha vi o r a nd war r an t a hi g he r de g r ee of pr ec au ti o n. U nited S ta tes v. A skew , 40 3 F
. 3d 496, 50 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “ Dr ug a r r e s t s c a n wa r r a nt i nt r us i v e t a c t i c s b e c a use o f thei r i nherentdanger

. ”)
. Offi cer s coul d rea sonab l y b el i eve th at Bul l o ck was po te nt i al l y dan g er o us an d a fl i g ht ri sk becau se ofhi s a w ar eness o fthe sea rch w ar ra nt, hi s a sso ci ati on with the re si dence , a n d the offi cer s’ r easonab l e s uspici on that he w as i nvol ved i n narc oti cs di s t r ib ut i o n. Hi s de t e nt i o n i n the s qu a d c a r wa s the r ef or e r eas onabl e. T h is is n ota c as e w h er e o ffice rs at te m p te d t o ex p loit th e si tu at i o n b y a sk i ngBul l o ckque st i o ns o r r eque stingN o. 10

- 2238 23 to se ar c h h is b elo n gin gs . C f. R o yer, 46 0 U.S

. at50 4- 05 ( hol ding leg i ti m ate l aw enf or cem ent purpos es w hi ch j usti fi ed detenti on i n the fi rs t instanc e were not fur th er ed byr emov i ngs us pec t to s m al l i nt er r o g at i o ntype ro om i n an appare nt eff or t t o obt ai n hi s co n sent to sea rch hi s lu gga ge)
. Rather, the re str ai nts were used to m ee t th e o ffi ce r s’ l eg i ti m at e i nt er es t i n s afety a nd secur i ty w hi l e br i efl y inv e s t i g a t ings us pe c t e d d ruga cti vi ty. U nd er the circu m stan ces, Bu ll ock’s sh ort trans p ort backto the re si dence w as al so p ro per. Bull ockhad j ust l eft the r esi dence and w as ten t o fiftee n bl ock s a w ay at th e ti m e of the tr affi c sto p. I t w as l ogi cal to tak e h im bac k to the resid en ce w he re other offi cers w ere p erf or m i ng a sea rch that coul d i m pli cate hi m i n cr i m i nal ac t i v i t y. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Yang, 28 6 F
. 3d 940, 95 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) (t ra n spor tat i on fro m ai rpor t t ar m ac t o i nt e r na t i o na l t e r mi na l di d no t t r a ns f o r m s t o p f or su sp ecte d d rug ac tivity into arrest w he re i t w as of short du ra ti on a nd nece ssa ryto co nfi rm the offi cer ’ s s uspici on g i v e n th a td r u g - t e s t i n ge q u i p me ntwas a tth e c u s t o ms offic e); Veg a , 72 F. 3 d a t 515-16 (hold ing tha t d efend an t’s st o p was “ no t ta nt amoun t to a n a r r es t” e ve n th ou gh “ th e offi cer s dre w thei r w eapons, as ked [ defe nd ant] to acc om p an y t h em [ba c k t o t h e c r im e s c en e] in on e o f th eir c ar s,” an d ke p t h i m in “ th e o ffice r’s ve h icle for a little ove r an hour ” wher e o ffi cer s had r eas onabl e s uspici on th atthe de fen dan t was i nv o l ve d i n mas si ve c o ca i ne i m p o r t a t i o n c o n s p i r a c y )
. I n f a c t, r e t u r n i n g B u l l o c k t o t he pri vate r esi dence he jus t l eft was l ess i ntrusi ve than co ntinu ing t o de ta i n h i m r o ads i de i n pub l i c vi ew. The m anne r o f sei zu r e i n thi s ca se was r ea so nabl e i n l i g ht ofthe ci rcum sta nces.24 N o. 10

- 2238

As pre vi ous l y st at ed i n f ootnot e 1, the gove rn m en tc hos e not 2 to a ssert v iab le arg u m en ts that t h e p o l i ce h ad p ro b ab le cau se t o a r r e s tB u l l o c k f o r d r u g d i s t r ib u t i o n a n d v i s i t i n g a c o mmo n n u i s a n c e b e f o r e th e y d e t a i n e d h i m. Eve n a ss um i ngthe manner of se i zu r e was o ve r l y i nt r usiv e, th e le n gt h of B u lloc k’s d et en tio n w as re a s on ab le an d th e o ffice rs w ou ld h av e i n e v i ta b ly a rre st ed h im a ft e r th e r e s i d e n c e s e a r c h

. As f ur th e r d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, once offi cer s s ear ched the house, they had pro babl e ca use to ar re st Bu l l ockf orvi si ti ng a com m on nui sa n c e, at whi chpo i ntthe y c o ul d t ak e Bul l o ckt o the st ati o n a nd sea rch hi m . H e would have b een arr est ed and sear ched 2 eve n i fm er el y deta i ned at the tr affi c st op w i thout re str ai nts. I n U nite d State s v. Sw if t, 220 F.3d 502, 504 ( 7th Cir. 2000), o ffi ce r s st o pped th e defen dan ts i n theirv eh i cl e an d sei zed them , h aving re aso nabl e s uspici on t o bel i eve they j ust co m m i tte d bank rob ber y. The o ffi cer s co ntacte d Cap tai n Sherbun w ho sai d the nam es of th e s uspects “r ang a bel l ” and b el i eve d they w er e i nvol ved i n p ast ro b b er ies th at w er e c ar rie d ou t in a s i m i lar p at te rn . Id. at 50 4- 05
. S he rbundi r ec te d the offi ce r s to t ak e th e de fe nd a nt s t o the s t a t i o n whe r e p o l i c e c o nfi s c a t e d a pagert hat l ate r l ed to ev i dence l i nki ng the defendants to th e ro b b er y. Id. at 5 05. Shortly after the d efend an ts w ere ta k ent o the s tat i o n, S he rbuna r r i ve d a t th e sc en e o fthe s t o p, l o o k e d i n s i d e th e v e h i c l e , a n d d i s c o v e r e d i t e ms c on n ec tin g t h e d efe n d an ts to th e c rim e. Id. W e st at ed i n Sw if

t that w hen the defe nd ants w er e t ake n to the s ta ti o n the y wer e unde r a r r es t, a r g uabl y wi th o utN o. 10

- 2238 25 p ro b ab le c au se . Id. at 508. The i nfor m ation th e officers h a d , th o u g h, p r o v i d e d a s u ffi c i e n tb a s i s t o c o n t i nue det aini ngthe d ef en dan ts unt i l S he rbuns ho wed up atthe scene ofthe sto p. Probabl e ca use wa s e stabl i shed once Sherbu n saw the i ncri m i nati ng ev i dence i n the vehi cl e. Id. W e no ted thata t the ti m e the defendants were tak en to the s tat i on, o ffi cer s were continuing to i nvest i gat e th e cr i m e an d i fthe de fen dan ts ha d b ee n h el d atthe scene, theywould have been l aw full y deta i ned f orthi rtytw o m in u te s u n d er an inv es tig at or y s to p . Id. at 50 9. W e r ea so ne d th at i n so m e si tu at i o ns , “mai nt aini ng the st atus quo whi l e o bt aini ng mor e i nf o r m at i o n . . . might be the m ostr eas onabl e a cti on t o tak e. ” Id. W e d eterm i ne d tha t ifthe de fen dan ts ha d b ee n de ta i ne d a t th e sc en e, the po l i ce woul d ha ve i ne vi tabl y s ei zed th e pager . There f or e, “[t ] he page r and the e vi dence to wh i ch it led [w er e] n otfru it of t h e p ois on ou s t re e” an d sh ou ld n o t h av e b ee n su p p re ss ed

. Id. at 51 0; see also U nited Sta tes v . S i mms , 62 6 F
. 3d 966, 97 1 ( 7th Ci r. 201 0) (sta ti ng tha t eve n i fthe p o l i c e di d n o th a v e p r o b ab l e c a us e to sea rch defe nda nt ’ s c a r, de fe nd a nt w as about to b e a rre st ed an d j aile d ind efin ite ly, h is c ar w ou ld ha ve e ve ntua ll y b ee n i m po unde d b y the po l i ce a nd su bj ec t to a n i nv en to r y s ea r ch, s o the di sc o ve r y o fthe gu n th er ein w as ine vit ab le ). W e fi nd the r ea so ni ngi n Sw ifti ns tru ctive he re. Offi cers c ou ld h av e d et ain ed B u lloc k a t t h e s c en e o ft h e t ra ffic sto p to m ai ntai n the sta tus quo w hi le th ey co nti nued th ei r b r i efi nv es ti g at i o n. The y ha d the s ea r chwar r an t i n h an d a nd within ab o utt enmin ut es o fthe s to p, the26 N o. 10

- 2238

sea rch w as und er w ay. The le ngth o fBull ock ’ s dete nti on w as rea so n ab le a n d th e o ffice rs ac te d d ilige n tly . I f B ulloc kha d b ee n de ta i ne d a t th e sc en e wi th o ut re str ai nts, i nstea d ofpl aced in the squad carand tak en to the r esi den ce , o ffi ce r s woul d s ti l l ha ve f o und the m ar ij uan a an d evi dence ofdrug- deal i ng ac ti vi ty, ther eby provi ding ( i fnotbo l ste ri ng) pro babl e ca us e t o ar re st B u lloc k. O n c e a rre st ed , a se ar c h of h is p e r so n w ou ld have re veal ed the cra ck. A c c or d in gly , B u lloc k’s d et en tio n w as rea so n ab le un d er Terry ; o ffi ce r s ac te d di l i g en tly i n s ea r ch i ngthe r es i den ce t o i nv es ti g at e th ei r wel l

- f ou nd ed su spi ci o ns of h is c rim in al a c tiv ity
.
2. D et enti on d uri ng Execut i on ofW arr ant un der Su m m e rs Form any o fthe sam e r eas ons ou tlin ed abo ve, B ullock’s det en tion w as also j us tified u nd er M i ch igan v. Su m m e rs, 45 2 U. S

. 6 92 ( 19 81 )
. The Co ur t i n Su m m ers e xt e nd e d Terrybey ond the “ m om enta ry, o n-the- str eet det en tion” t o the de ta i nm en t o fa r es i den t o r o cc upa nt w ho i s o n the prem i ses wh i l e a se ar c h p ursuant to a w ar r a n t is co n d u c te d

. Su m m ers , 452 U .S. at 7 00 -05 . A d eten tion un d er Su m m ers is anal ogo us i n cer tai n re spects to a Ter ry st op . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Bur ns , 37F .3d 27 6, 28 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( “Whi l e det en ti o n dur i ngthe e xe cutio n of a s ea rc h w ar ra n t is n ota tr ad itio n al Ter ry s to p , i t i s su ffi ci en tly a na l o g o us f o r us t o c onc lud e th at, i n the u su al c as e, M i r anda w arn ings are not requ ired.”).N o. 10

- 2238 27 The Co ur t i n Su m m ers hel d t h at o ffi cer s e xecuti ng a s e a r c h wa r r a ntf o r c o nt r a b a nd h a v e “ the l i m i ted au th or ity to d e t a i n t h e o c c u p an ts of th e p re m ise s w h ile a pro per sea rch i s co nd ucted. ” Sum m ers , 4 52 U
. S. at70 5. The de t e nt i o n o fa n o c c up a nti s wa r r a nt e d “ b e c a us e th e charac te r o fthe a ddi ti o na l i nt r us i o n c au se d b y de te nti on i s s l i ght a n d b ecause the j usti fi cati ons f ordetent i on ar e s ubstanti al

. ” M ue hl e rv. M e na , 54 4 U .S. 9 3, 98 ( 2005 ) ( ci ti ng Su m m ers , 45 2 U.S. at 701- 05) ( obs er vi ng tha t an “o ffice r’s a u t h o r i t y t o d et ain inc id en t t o a se ar c h is cate gor i cal ”)
. The Courti nd i cate d thre e l egi ti m ate l aw en f o r ce m en t j us ti fi ca ti o ns f o r det en ti o n dur i ngexec uti o n o fa s ea r ch w ar r an t: ( 1) t o pr ev en t fl i g hti n the eve nt i ncri m i n ating evi dence i s di sco ver ed; ( 2) to m in im ize th e ris k o fh a r m t o t h e o ffice rs ; an d (3) to fac ilita te th e o rd er ly c om p let ion of th e s ea rc h

. Summ e rs , 452 U .S
. at70 2- 03. I n Su m m ers , pol i ce o ffi cer s were about to exec ute a war r an t to s ea r cha ho use for na r co ti cs whenthe y e nc ou n te re d th e d efe n d an t d es c en d in g t h e fro n t s te p s. Id. at 69 3. The o ffi ce r s d et aine d the de fen dan t, who was the reside nt of th e p rem ises, d uring th e searc h. T h e Cou rt fou n d th at d efe n d an t’s d et en tio n in h is h om e w as “s u re ly les s in tr u siv e th an th e s ea rc h i t se lf[,]” b ec au se it “c ou ld add o nl y m i ni m al l y t o the publ i c st i gm a a sso ci ate d wi ththe s ea r ch

. . . a nd wou l d i nv o l ve ne ithe r the i nc o nveni ence northe i nd i gni ty ass oci ate d w i th a com pel l ed vi si t t o the p olic e s tat i on. ” Id. at 701-02. Th e C ou rt furth er reason ed that once “ [a ] j ud ici al offi cer ha s d eterm i ned that pol i c e hav e pr obab l e ca use t o bel i eve that so m eo ne i n the ho m e i s co m m i tt i nga c r i m e[ , ] ”
. . . “ [ t] he28 N o. 10

- 2238

co n n e c t i o n o f a n o c c u p a n t t o th a t h o me g i v es t he pol i ce o ffi ceran ea si l y i denti fi abl e a nd cer tai n basi s f or deter m i ni ng tha t su spi ci on o fcr i m i nal act i vi ty j usti fi es a dete nti on o fthato ccupant. ” Id. at 703- 04. W e hav e ex t e n d ed the rationa le of Su m m ers to vi sitors of a h om e. SeeU nite d State s v. P ace, 89 8 F
. 2d 1218 , 12 39 ( 7th Cir

. 19 90) ( re aso ni ng t h at defe nd ants’ co nnecti on a s vis ito rs “t o t h e c on d om in iu m ga ve t h e o ffice rs ‘an ea sily i den ti fi ab l e an d c er ta i n ba si s’ ” f o r de ta i ni ngthe m dur i ng th e search) ( quoti ng Su m m ers , 452 U .S. at 7 03 -04 ); see a lso Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Je nni ngs , 54 4 F
. 3d 815, 81 8- 19 ( 7th C ir
. 2 00 8) ( r ely i ngo n Su m m ers t o fi n d l a wfu l t he bri efdetainm en t ofdefendant w ho had ente re d secur i ty p erim eter s u r r o u n d ing targeted ap artm en t w he re n ar c ot ics se ar c h w as u n d er w ay ). Th e is su e h e re is whethe r the r ea so ni ngi n Su m m ers sho uld be exte nd ed to a n in di vi dualwho ha s l eft th e r es i den ce b efo r e ex ec uti on o fthe sea rch w ar ra nt, i s p u lled o vera few bl ock s aw ay, and i s deta i ned du ri ng the se ar ch. U nd er the p a r t i c ul a r f acts of thi s c a s e , we fi nd tha ti ts ho ul d. Bu l l ock ’ s dete nti on was r eas onabl e g i ven hi s s uspected cri m i nal acti vi ty i n connect i on w i th the re si dence, h is ri sk offl i gh t, an d the pot enti aldangerhe pos ed to offi cer s i fnotdetained. H e was det ain ed f orthi rty o r f orty m in utes at a r esi dence he had j ust l eft a nd had vis ite d on m u ltip le oc c as i o n s ; th e o ffice rs ’ int er es ts in detai ni ng hi m duri ng the se ar ch w er e no t o utw ei ghed b y th i s r a th e r l i mi t e d i n t r u s i o n o n h i s fr e e d o m. Othe r ci r c ui t s h a v e e xt e nd e d Su m m ers in sim il ar circumst an ce s. I n U ni t e d S t ates v
. Coch r an , 93 9 F
. 2d 337, 33 8N o. 10

- 2238 29 (6th C ir. 1991), p oli ce offi cers w e n t t o the d efend an t’s r es i den ce t o e xe cut e a se ar chwar r an t an d o bs er ve d the d efe n d an t le av in g t h e p r e m ise s. Id. Offi cer s di d not w an t to f orcibly enter the prem ises k n o w ing tha t the re w as a gu ar d d o g in sid e. Id. A ccord ingly, the offi cers st o pped th e defen dan t sh o r tly a fte r he e xi te d the pr emi se s an d r eque st ed as si stance i n e nt er i ngthe h ou se . Id. The c o ur t, r ely i ngo n Su m m ers , fou n d t h at h is d e t en tio n w as rea so n ab le. Id. at 339. The co urt expla i ned that “ Su m m ers does not i m pose up on pol i ce a duty base d on ge ogr aphic proxi m i ty ( i
. e. , defendant m ust be d et ain ed w h ile st ill o n h is p re m ise s); ra th er , th e fo c u s is up on pol i ce per f or m an c e, that i s, wh etherthe pol i ce detai ned defe nd ant a s s oo n as p ra cti cabl e a fterdeparting fro m hi s r esi dence. ” Id. Th e F i fth Ci r c ui ts i mi l a r l y e xt e nd e d Su m m ers . In U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cavazos , 288 F. 3d 706, 708 ( 5th C ir . 2 0 0 2), offic er s w er e c on d u c tin g s u rv eill a n c e of a re sid en c e in pr epa r at i o n ofexe cut i nga s ea r chwar r an t. The de fen dan t an d t wo o th er s le ft th e r es i den ce i n a t r uck, pul l ed up c l o s e ly to th e o ffice rs ’ ve h icle an d p ee re d ins id e. Id. T he t r u c k d ro ve aw ay an d th e o ffice rs follow ed

. Id. T he tr uckthe n made a U- tu r n, a ppr o ac he d the o ffi ce r s, a nd crosse d over i nt o t h e officers’ l an e, creatin g a stan d off

. Id. B ot h ve h i c les st op p ed , an d th e o ffice rs ex ite d th eir ve h icle w ith gu n s d ra w n . Id. T h e offi cer s t oo k defen d an t ba c k to th e res id en c e an d d et ain ed h im d u rin g t h e s ea rc h

. Id. The c o ur t i n Cavazos f o und the o ffi ce r s’ a ct i o ns l awful un d er Su m m ers . Cavazos , 288 F.3d at 711

. Th e d efend an t’s30 N o. 10

- 2238

c on n ec tio n to th e re sid en c e g av e o ffice rs an “ ‘ea sily id en tifi a b l e a n d ce rt ain ba sis for d et er m in in g t h at su sp ici on o fcr i m i nal a cti vi ty j usti fi e[ d] a detent i on o fthat occupant. ’ ” Cavazos , 28 8 F
. 3d at 711 ( quoti ng Su m m ers , 452 U
. S. at70 3- 04)
. The o ffi cer s a l so had rea son to believe that he w as p erform ing som e typ e of co u n t ersu rv eilla n c e w h en h e d ro ve th e t ru c k t o w ar d th em in a t h re at en in g m an n er . Id. “ This conductwar r an te d the bel i efthat[ the defendant] w oul d have fl ed oral er ted the o thero ccupants o f t h e r esi dence abo ut the age nts nearby i f he w er e re l eas ed i m m edi ate l y afterth e s top and fr i sk. ” Id. The c o ur t no te d tha t wh il e “[ t] he pr o xi m i tyb etwee n an oc cupa nto fa r es i den ce a nd the re si dence i tse l fm ay be r el evanti n deci ding w hetherto apply Su m m ers , . . . i t i s by no m eans contr ol l i ng. ” Id. at 712. Othe r c i r c ui t s ha v e de c l i ne d t o e xt e nd Su m m ers to a re si dent oro ccupant w ho has left the r esi dence to be se ar ch ed. I n U nite d State s v. Sh er ri ll, 27F. 3d 344, 34 5 ( 8th Cir

. 1994 ) , offi cer s obt ai ned a sea rch w ar ra nt b as ed o n re l i abl e info rm ati on that defendant w as deal ing drugs fro m h is re sid en c e. Id. Befo re executi on of the w ar ra nt, th e d efe n d an t le ft t h e p re m ise s a n d offic er s s to p p ed h im a bl ockaw ay , in for m ed hi m thattheyhad the w ar ra nt, and detai ned him duri ng the se ar ch

. Id. Offi c e r s h a nd

cuffed hi m , read h im hi s r i g ht s, a nd t o o khi m b ac kt o the re sid en c e. Id. at 345- 46. The cour t f ound that Su m m ers d id no t appl y b eca us e th e defen dan t ha d a l r ea dy l eft th e pr em i se s, s o “ th e i nt r us i ve ne ss o fthe o ffi ce r s’ s to p a nd de t e nt i o n o n the s t r e e twa s muc h g re ate r. ” Id. at34 6. Fu rthe r, alt hou gh the d efend an t help ed the offi cers conduct the sea rch, wh en the y s topped defe nd ant, theyN o. 10

- 2238 31 d id n oth av e a n y in te re st in p r e v e n tin g fligh t o r m in im izi ng the sea rch ’s ri sk bec au se th e d efend an t h ad l eft th e a re a a n d w as u n aw ar e o f th e w ar ra n t. Id. I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Edward s , 1 0 3 F .3 d 90, 91 (10th Cir. 1996 ) , po l i ce pr epa r ed to ex ec ut e a se ar ch war r ant of a su sp ec te d “d r u g h ou se .” T h e d efe n d an t, an ex -c on vic t in a d rug re habi l i tat i on pro gr am , was a fre quent vi si tor ofthe house. Bef or e the se ar ch, pol i ce ob ser ved the defe n d a nt l eave the h ou se. T he y pu ll ed him over, suspecti ng tha t the ve hi cl e co ntai ned drugs a nd that h e m igh t b e a rm ed an d d an g er ou s. Id. The de fen dan t was de ta i ne d s tr ee t-side f o r f o r ty
- fi ve min ut es , dur i ng w hi ch ti m e o ffi cer s dre w thei r gu n s an d hand cuffed h im
. Id. The o ffi cer s di d not fi nd co ntraband ordrugs o n h i m o r i n the v eh i cl e, b uthe d id ha ve k ey s to the h ou se . Id. a t 91

- 92
. The f o r ty
- fi ve min ut e d etent i o n, the co ur t f o und, was un re as o nabl e be ca us e bythe c o nc l usi on o fthe sea rch ofthe h ou se, the offi cer s no l onge r p os se ss ed t h e “ re as on ab le s u sp icio n ” t h at init ially j u st ified th e s to p . Id. at93
. The co urt al so de c lin ed to e xt e nd Su m m ers b ec au se p rio r t o the s to p the de fen dan t was una war e th at a war r an t was be i ng ex ec ut ed so he h ad n o re as on to flee

. Id. at9 4. F ur th er, the de fen dan t did notpose a ri sk ofhar m to the officers and hi s det e nt i o n p l a y e d n o p a r ti n f a c i l i t a t i n gth e o r d e r l y c o mp let ion of th e s ea rc h

. Id. Unl i k e i n Sherr il l a nd Edwards , th e p ar tic u lar fac ts of th is case w arr a n t ext en sion of Su m m ers . The o ffi cer s had pr o babl e ca use t o pul l W i l he l m o ve r f o r dr i vingo n a suspended l i cense. A l though they pul l ed her overte n to32 N o. 10

- 2238 f i ft e e n b l o c k s f r o m the r e s i de nc e , Gr e e nl e e t e s t i fi e d that he ha d to r adi o uni f o r m ed o ffi ce r s to m ak e th e stop a nd ther e i s no thi ng to sugg estthatthe vehi cl e was not pu l l e d o v e r a s s o o n a s pr a c t i c a b l e . Du r i ng the st op , o ffi ce r s r ea so nabl y i nf o r m ed W i l he l m o f th e se ar ch w arran t, at w hich point Bu ll ock bec a m e a w are of th e w arra nt. Once aware ofthe w ar ra nt, he b ecam e a fl i ght r i sk an d a po te nt i alr i skt o the o ffi cers’ s afety i n e xe cut i ng the w arrantgi ven hi s s uspected i l l ega l as soc i ati on with th e re sid en c e. Se eSu m m ers , 45 2 U. S

. a t 70 2 ( r ec o g ni zing the executi on of a w ar ra nt to sea rch f or d ru gs “m ay gi ve ri se to sudd en vi ol ence orfra nti c eff or ts to con ceal or dest roy eviden ce”). Bu l l o c k ’ s de t e nt i o n w as n o tu nr e a s o nab l y p r o l o ng e d. H e was atthe tr affi c st op sce ne f orte n to twenty m i nu tes b e f o r e h e w a s t a k e n t o th e r e s i d e nc e an d b y th e t i me he retur ne d t o the r es i den ce , the s ea r chwas unde rw ay . S e e, e . g. , M ueh ler, 54 4 U.S

. at10 0 ( fi nd i ng two- to three-hourdetainm ent o fo ccupant i n handcu ff s r easonab l e whil e pol i ce s ear ched p re m ises bec ause such r es tr ai nt s di d no t o ut wei g h g o ve r nm en t’ s co nt i nui ng safetyi nter est s)
. Offi c er s d i d not e xploi t the dete nti on by tr y i ngt o o bt ai n addi ti o na l e vi den ce fr o m Bul l o ckdur i ng ex ec u tio n of th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t. See Su m m ers , 4 52 U
. S. at 701 ( sta ti ng tha t deta i ni ng an occupant duri ng exe cuti on o fa s ea r chwar r ant is “n o t l i k ely t o b e ex pl o i te d b y the officer or un d uly p rolonged in ord er to gain m ore i nform a t i o n, b e c a us e the i nfo r mat i o n the o ffi c e r s se ek nor m a l l y wi l l b e o b t a i ne d thr o ugh the s e a r c h a nd n ot th ro u gh th e d et en tio n ”); se e also Pace, 89 8 F
. 2d at 1239 ( fi nd i ng dete nti on o fvi si tor s in hom e duri ng exe cuti onN o. 10

- 2238 33

As pre vi ous l y no t ed, the gover nm en tconfi ne d i t s j us t i fi c at i on 3 f or the a r r e s tt o the c omm onn ui s a nc e c ha r ge a bo utwhi ch Bul l oc k c om pl ai ns . W hat both par t i es appar en t l y f ai l to rec ogni ze i s that u nd er o ur Su pre m e Cour t ’ s ho l di ng i n D eve npeck (co n tin u ed ...) ofse ar ch w ar ra nt r eas onabl e in part because the pol i ce did notexpl oi t the dete nti ons to obt ai n i nfo rm at i on or search them exc ep t for p erform ing a pa t-do w n). F ur th er, the us e o fhandc uff s was re as o nabl e. “ I nhe r en t i n Su m m ers ’ a u th o r i z a t i o n t o d e t a i n a n o c c u p a n to fthe p lac e t o b e s e ar c h ed is th e a u th or ity to u se rea so n ab le f or ce to effectuat e the d et en ti on. ” M ueh ler, 54 4 U.S

. at 9 8

- 9 9
. Whi l e a ro a ds i de de t e nt i o n f o l l o we d b y h a nd

cuff s a nd pl acem en t in a s quad carcer tai nl y c ar ri es m or e s ti gm a than a d ete nti on i n one’ s ho m e, the f acts i n thi s ca se war r an te d the a ddi ti o na l intr us i o ns f o r the l i m i ted ti m e t o execute the s ear ch w ar ra nt.

B. Pr obable Cause t o Arr est A fterexec uti on o fthe sea rch w ar ra nt, o ffi cer s a rr est ed Bul l o ckf o r v i si tinga c o m m o n n uisance unde r I ndi an a C od e § 3 5-4 8-4 -13 (a). B u lloc k c on te n d s t h at offic er s d id n o th a v e p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s th i m f o r th i s c r i me becaus e th ere was nothi ng to i nd i cate he was aware o f the m ar ij uana i n the dini ng r oo m o r that drugs had be en us e d a tthe r e s i de nc e o n mul t i pl e o c c a s i o ns . T he g over nm ent re sp onds thatther e was pro babl e ca use t o ar re st Bu l l ockf orvi si ti ng a com m on nui sance. 334 N o. 10

- 2238

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 v. A l f ord , 54 3 U. S. 14 6, 15 3- 56 ( 20 04 ) , the Four th Am en dm en t r e a s on a bl e ne s s i nqui r y i s n otdr i ve n by the pol i c e ’ s s ub

jectiv e rea son s f or arre sting an ind iv id u al. Althoughoffi c er s s t at ed thatthe y a rr es t ed Bul l oc k f or v isiting a com m on nu isan ce, they ha d p ro b ab le cau se to ar rest him f or drug dist ribu ti on, poss ibly bef ore, but cer tai nly after, execu t i o n o f the search w arr an t. “[A ]n arre st is reaso na b le u nd er th e F ou rth A m en d m en t so lon g as ther e is pro b ab le cau se to b eliev e tha t s o me c r i m i na l offen se ha s be en or is bei ng com m itted , eve n i fi ti s no tthe c ri m e with whi c h the of fic ers in iti a lly charge the sus pect. ” F ox v . H ayes , 600 F. 3d 81 9, 83 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( c i t i ng De v enpe ck, 5 4 3 U .S. a t 1 5 3 -5 6 ). I n D eve npeck, the Su p rem e Cour tr ej ec t ed “ [ t ] he r ul e thatthe off en s e es t abl i s hi ng pro babl e c aus e m us tbe ‘ c l os el y r el at ed’ t o, a nd ba s e d on the s a m e c on duc ta s , the o ff e ns e i de nt i fi e d b y the arresting offic er atthe ti m e ofarre st
. ” 543 U.S

. at 153 ( “[ T]he f ac tthatthe offi c erdoe s no tha ve the s t at e ofm i nd whic h i s hypo the c at ed by the r ea s ons whi c h pr ovi de the leg al justification f or the o ffi c er’s actio n d oe s no t inv alid ate the act ion t aken as long as the circ um st ances , viewed objec

t i vel y, j us tify thatac t i on. ”) ( c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “[ T] he i s s ue i s whethe r a r ea s onabl e offi c er, with the s am e i nf or m at ion k no w n . . . at the tim e, w ou ld ha v e ha d p ro b ab le ca u se to arres t [ the defe nd an t] f or any of f ense . ” Wi l l i am s v. R odriquez , 5 0 9 F. 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e mph a s i s a dd e d)

. B u twe w il l lim itour analys is to the com m on nuisance charge becau se the g ov ern m en t cho se to d efend the a rrest o n th at b asis. A deter m i nati on o fpro bable c au se i s ba sed o n probabi l i ti es and “does not re quir e e vi dence sufficient to su ppo r t a co nv i ction, no r e ve n e vi den ce de m o ns tr at i ng that i t i s m or e l i kel y than not th at t h e su spect com m i tte dN o. 10

- 2238 35

a cr i m e. ” Fu nc hes , 32 7 F
. 3d at 586 ( quoti ng U n i t e d Sta tes v. C a rri ll o , 2 69 F
. 3d 76 1, 7 66 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) )
. As s uch, “st andards such a s p ro of b eyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt or by a p r e po nd e r a nc e o fthe e v i de nc e , u s e fuli n f o r m al tr ials , ha ve n o p lac e in th e [p ro b ab le-c au se ] d ec isio n .” Il l i noi s v. Ga tes , 4 62 U .S. 21 3, 23 5 (1 98 3). T o fin d p ro b ab le cause, ther e nee d onl y b e aprob abil i ty ora substa nti al c h an c e t h at cr im in al a c tiv ity ex ist s. P urv i s v. O est, 61 4 F.3d 713 , 722-23 (7th C ir. 2010). Pr o babl e ca us e i s a “co m m o ns en se , no nt ec hni ca l c o nce pti o n tha t dea l [ s] wi ththe f ac tu aland pra ct i ca l c o nsi der at i o ns o f ev er y day l i fe o n whi ch r ea so na ble a nd prudent m en, not l ega l te chnic i ans, act
. ” O rnela s v. U nited Sta tes , 517U .S

. 6 9 0, 69 5 (1 99 6) (q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ). In deter m i ni ng wh ether s uspici ous c i rcum sta nces ri se to the l eve l o fpro bable c au se, o ffi cer s a re enti tl ed to draw r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s ba se d on th ei r t r aini nga nd e xp er ien c e. Fu nc hes , 32 7 F
. 3d at 586.

“ A po l i c e o ffi c e r ’ s p r ob ab l e c a us e de t e r mi na t i o n de pe nd s on the el em ents ofthe appli cabl e crim in al statute. ” Sto k es v. Bd . o f E du c. of

t heCi ty of

Chi cago , 59 9 F
. 3d 617, 62 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. A fterbeing detained at the r esi de nce, offi cer s a rr est ed Bull oc k f orvi ol ati ng Ind i ana’ s co m m on nuis ance s tatute, wh i ch m ake s i t a Cl ass B m i sdem eanor for an y pe rson to “know ingly or inten tionally visit[ ] a bui l ding, st ructur e, veh icl e, o r othe r pla ce that i s use d b y a n y p er so n to u n law fu lly u se a c on tr olle d su b st an c e.” In d . C od e § 3 5

- 48 -4-1 3(a ). To co n vic t a p er so n of th is offense, the sta te m ust pro ve that the defen dant knew th e r es idenc e was us ed f o r the unl awfulus e o fc o n-36 N o. 10

- 2238
tr olle d s u b st an c es . B ass v. State, 51 7 N
. E.2 d 1238, 12 39- 40 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 1988 ) ( per curi am )
. The sta te m us t a lso prove thatthe re si dence h as been used f orthe unla w ful use of c on tr olle d su b st an c es on m or e t h an on e o c c as ion
. Id. I nd i a nac o ur t s h a v e f o un d ins uffi c i e nte v i de nc e to c o nv i c ta de fe nd a nto fv i s i t i nga c o mm o n nu i s a nc e w h er e d ru gs w er e n otin p l ain vie w of th e d efe n d an t. See i d. ( ho l di ng th at th e st at e di d no t i nt r o duce su ffi ci en t evi dence to es tabl i sh defendants knew r esi de n c e w as us ed for unl aw ful use o fco ntro l l ed substa nces because ther e was nothi ng to sho w thatdrugs w er e v i sibl e fro m defen dan ts ’ v i ew p oint ev entho ug h o ffi ce r s f o und dr ug p ar ap h er n alia

— a bon g with re si du e co ntai ni ng hashi sh an d m ar ij ua na

— on t abl e next to w here theywere si ttin g); see also B rast erv. State, 59 6 N
. E.2 d 2 78 , 2 79 (I nd

. Ct. App. 1 99 2) ( st at i ngtha t c ou r t “c anno t as su m e f r o m the evi dence pres ented attr i althatdefendant k n ew t hat a contr ol l ed s u b sta nce was being used atthe re si dence”; th er e w as n o e vid en c e t h a t p ar ap h er n alia w as fou n d in kitchen w here defendant w as prese nt o r w i thi n h is p lai n view ). Con ve r se l y, wher e dr ug s a r e i n pl ain vi ew ofthe de fen dant, co urts have f ound suffi ci ent e vi dence to sho w that th e d efe n d an t h ad kn ow led ge o fd ru g u se . Hale v. State, 785 N
. E .2d 641, 64 3 ( I nd

. Ct. A pp . 20 03) ( “W e ca nnot saythat[ d efe nd ant] , wh o w as si tting withi n pla i n vi ew of t h e s h oe b ox fu ll of m ar ij u an a d id n oth av e k n ow ledg e th at[ th e] r es i den ce was b eingused f o r the u n law fu l us e o f a c on tr olle d su b st an c e.” ); s e e al s o Zuniga v . State, 8 15 N. E. 2d 19 7, 2 00 ( I nd. Ct

. App. 2 00 4) ( su ffi ci en t evid e n c e existed to show know ledge of d rug u se w he reN o. 10

- 2238 37 defe nd ant s tepped i nsi de ga ra ge; detec ti ves sm el l ed burnt m ar ij ua na i n th er e; an d det ec ti ve s f o und smok i ng devi ces, r ol lin g paper s, a ro l l i ng m achi ne, r esi du e o f m arij ua na and blun t cigars i n gara ge). As no ted , the s ta tu te a l so r equi r es a s ho wi ngo fdr ug u se on m or e th an on e o c c a s ion
. Hale, 78 5 N
. E.2 d at 6 43 ( quoti ng B a ss v. State, 5 1 2 N. E. 2 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 4 ( I nd

. Ct

. App
. 19 87 )). “[T ]h e ter m ‘c om m on n u isa n c e’ as us e d w i t h in th e st atut e . . . r equir es pr o o fo fa c o nt i nuo us o r r ec ur r en t vi ol atio n .” Id. The c o ur t i n Tray lo r v. Sta te, 81 7 N
. E.2 d 611, 62 0 ( I nd

. Ct. A p p . 2 004) , hel d that the r esi dence d efend an t visi ted w as a “ c om m on n uisan ce” w he re o ffi c e r s f o u n d a b r i e f c a s e c o n t a i n i n gb a g g i e s o fme th a mphetam i ne and a gl ass pi pe used f orthe consum pti on o f m etham phetam i ne, and f ound gl ass pip es , so m e with burnt re si du e, i n other parts o fthe resid en c e. There w as al so evi den c e th at the defendant w as produci ng, pre par i ng, a nd pr o ce ss i ngmeth amp het ami ne wi th i n the r es i den ce . The c o ur t he l d tha t “i t was r ea so nabl e f o r the j ury to i nfe r f ro m the evi dence .

. . t h at t h e . . . . r esi dence was us ed m o r e th ano nc e f o r the c o ns um pti o n o fmeth

amphet ami ne . ” Id. The abo ve case s di scuss w h at e vidence i s nee ded to s u p p o r ta c o n v i c t i o n f o r v i s i t i n ga c o mmo n n u i s a n c e . As sta ted, the gov er nm ent ne ed onl y s how thato ffice rs had probable c au se to m ake an a rr est, wh i ch r equi re s o nl y a probabi l i ty ora substa nti alchance that cri m i nal act i vi ty exi sts , nota showing ofpro ofbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt. Bas e d o n a l l the f a c t s k no wn t o the o ffi c e r s a t the ti m e, w e co ncl ud e that they ha d pr ob ab le c ause to ar re st38 N o. 10

- 2238 Bu l l ockf orvi si ti ng a co m m on n uis ance. On the day of th e s ea rc h, office rs fou n d m ar ij u an a in a b ox in p lain vi ew o n the d ining ro o m t ab l e an d a l i g ht erne xtt o the mar ij ua na, l e a di ng t o the i nfe r e nc e tha t i t ha d been sm oke d i nsi de. Gree nl ee tes ti fi ed that “yo u coul d not ha ve wal k ed th r oug h the ho us e wi th o uts ee i ngthe d ru gs th er e i n p lain vie w .” B u lloc k h ad j u st leftth e re sidence and had been insi de on m ult i ple o ccasi ons. Du ri ng the se ar ch, o ffi cer s also f ound a l ar ge bal l o f pla sti c ba ggi es that conta i ned a sm al l am ount o fcr ack c o c a i ne a nd a sca l e in a no the r l o c a t i o n. Gr e e nl e e o pi ne d, b a s e d o n h i s e x p e r i e n c e a n d t r a i n i n g , th a t th e i t e ms se i ze d dur i ngthe s ea r chwer e con si st en t wi thb o thdr ug di st r ibut i o n an d ( m o r e i m po r ta nt l y, wi th r es pec t to th e com m on n u isan ce ch arge) use. Bu ll ock d oes not assert th a tth e s e a r c h w a s i n v a l i d

. T h e di s c o v e r y o fth e s e i t e ms c o r r o b o r a t e d the t i ps t e r ’ s i nfo r mat i o n o fdr uga c t i v i ty w i thi n the re si dence. A s the di s t r i c tc o ur tf o un d, a c o mm o n- s e ns e v i e w of the eve ry day re al i ti es of l i fe w oul d l ead offi cer s to r easonab l y b e l i e v e tha tBu l l o c kwa s a wa r e tha tdr ugu se h ad oc c u rre d ins id e t h e r e s i d en c e, an d th er e w as ev iden ce tha t i t o cc ur r ed o n mor e than o ne o cc as i o n. W hi l e the o ffi cer s co uld nothave b een cer tai n that Bu l l ockwas aware o fthe m ar ij uana i n th e dini ng r oo m or th e o th er ev id en c e o f d ru g a c tiv ity fou n d in t h e re side nc e , the y h a d pro ba ble ca use to be li eve so bas ed on Bu l l ock ’ s pre sence i n the house that day and hi s pri or assoc iatio n w i th the r esi dence thatl ed offi cer s t o obtai n a s ear ch w ar ra nt f orthe prem i ses .N o. 10

- 2238 39 A ccor dingl y, f orthe reas ons stat ed, the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

2- 1- 11