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

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

### Ju n e20,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 1414 v. ( D . C ol or ado) CH AP E N D. P E E K,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 4 9 4 - B)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

C hapen D . Peek pl ed gui l t yt o pos s es s i ng a fi r earm aft era fe l ony c o n v ictio n , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), an d w a s s e n ten c e d to se v e n ty m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. I n hi s pl ea agr eement , he r es erved hi s r i ghtt o appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s u p p r e s s , a n d h e n o w b r i n g s t h a ta p p e a l . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tfo r t h b e l o w, we a ffi r m.- 2- BA CKGROUND T he s ear ch thatPeek cha l l enged i n hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t ook pl ace i n t he bas ement bedr oom of Ti na A r el l ano, a part i ci panti n C ol or ado’ s i nt ens i ve s upervi s i on pr ogr am, w hi ch al l ow s cert ai n offe nder s s er vi ng a s ent ence fol l ow i ng a sta te c o n v ictio n to se rv e th e ir tim e in th e c o m m u n ityw h ile w e a rin g a n a n k le br ace l et , s ubj ectt o s upervi s i on byt he Par ol e D i vi s i on of the C ol or ado D epart m entof C or r ect i ons . A tt he t i m e, A r el l ano, w ho w as s er vi ng a s ent ence fora drug offe ns e, w as r es i di ng att he home of hers t epfa t her , A dl i do G urul e. O n N ovember18, 2004, G urul e w entt o t he par ol e off i ce a nd s poke w i t h O ffi cerB arbar a C l ement i , t he par ol e off i ceras s i gned t o s upervi s e A r el l ano, and O ffi cerC l ement i ’ s s upervi s or , O ffi cerPhi l l i p A r agon. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cer A ragon’s l at er t est i m on y , G urul e “i nd i cat ed thatM s. A rel l ano w as usi ng drugs, a n d t h e r e we r e a l o to f . . . s h a d yc h a r a c t e r s h a n g i n g a r o u n d t h e h o u s e . He b e liev e d th a t th e yw e re tra ffick in g n a rc o tics o u t o f h is h o m e . . . . ” T r. o f M o t. t o Suppr es s H r ’ g at10, R . V ol . I I . O ffi cerC l ement i t es t i fi ed thatG urul e “s t at ed t hathe w as j us tfed up w i t h w hatw as goi ng on athi s r es i dence , t hathe bel i eved hi s . . . s t epdaught erw [as ] i nvol ved i n drugs , us i ng and tr aff i cki ng, and ther e w as a lo t o f tra ffic in h is re sid e n c e .” Id . at 5 9 . G u ru le in d ica ted th a t h e w a n ted to s t op t he ac t i vi t i es t hathe s us pect ed w er e occ ur r i ng i n hi s hom e butdi d notw ant ot her s t o know of hi s i nvol vement , and ther efor e t ol d O ffi cerC l ement i “thathe- 3-

w o u ld g iv e [ h e r] a 9 1 1 p a g e if th e re w a s a n yb o d yth a t h e th o u g h t w a s c o m in g in hi s r es i dence s el l i ng drugs . ” I d. at61. O ffi cerC l ement i t es t i fi ed that , bas ed on w hatG urul e s ai d and on her o b s e r v a t i o n , d u r i n g A r e l l a n o ’ s l a s tv i s i tt o h e ro ffi c e o n e o rt w o d a ys p r e v i o u s l y, of fr es h t r ack mar ks on A r el l ano’ s arm and s or es on herfac e, s he s us pect ed A re lla n o w a s u s in g d ru g s in v io la tio n o f th e c o n d itio n s o f

h e r s u p e rv is io n . O ffi cerC l ement i t her efor e pl anned t o go t o A r el l ano’ s hous e t o conductan ons i t e ur i nal y s i s drug t es t . T hateveni ng, s he and O ffi cerA r agon w er e al r eady dr i vi ng t ow ar ds A r el l ano’ s r es i dence w hen theyr ece i ved a 911 pa ge fr om G urul e. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerC l ement i , w hen the off i cer s arr i ved att he hous e and rang t he d oo rbel l , G urul e l ett hem i nsi de, say i ng “C om e on i n, go do w nst ai rs , they ’re at i t aga in.” Id. at 64 . O fficer A rag o n test ifi ed that G u rule sa id “T h ey ’re dow ns t ai r s ” and “ T hey ’ r e ati tr i ghtnow . ” I d. at14. G urul e then s how ed them t he s t ai r s l eadi ng t o t he bas ement , and the off i cer s w entdow ns t ai r s and dow n t he hal l t o t he bedr oom , the doorof w hi ch w as hal f cl os ed. O ffi cerC l ement i t es t i fi ed t hats he pus hed the dooropen and s aw A r el l ano s i t t i ng i n a cha i rt o t he r i ghtand a man, l at eri dent i fi ed as Peek, s i t t i ng on a bed t o t he l eft , l eani ng agai ns tt he w al l , and w ear i ng a j acke t . T he r oom w as cl ut t er ed w i th furni tur e, cl ot hi ng, and C D equi pm ent , among ot hert hi ngs . N ei t heroffi cers aw anydrugs ordrug p a r a p h e r n a l i a i n p l a i n v i e w.- 4-

A c c o rd in g to th e p a ro le o ffice rs, O ffice r C lem e n ti th e n a sk e d P e e k w h a t h is name w as , and Peek a ns w er ed thathi s name w as “Fr ank. ” O ffi cerA r agon had been Pee k’ s par ol e off i ceri n 1996 and t es t i fi ed that , aft erhear i ng Peek s peak, he r ecogni zed Pee k and t ol d hi m “That ’ s noty ourname, y ourname i s C hapen Pee k. ” I d. at21. A ccor di ng t o Peek, t hi s excha nge di d nott ake pl ace . O ffi cerA r agon then as ked forPeek’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and t ol d hi m he w as goi ng t o run a w arr ant s chec k. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerA r agon, att hi s poi ntPeek beca m e “ve r ynervous , ” w i t h s w eat“dr i ppi ng dow n al ong t he s i de of hi s fac e. ” I d. at22. T he w arr ant s chec k pr oduced no i ndi cat i on of anyout s t andi ng wa r r a n t s . Offi c e rAr a g o n t h e n t o l d P e e k t h a th e wa s g o i n g t o c o n d u c ta p a t - d o wn s ear ch of hi s per s on foroffi cers afe t y . O ffi cerA r agon t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved Peek mi ghthave a w eapon be caus e of Pee k’ s nervous nes s and bec aus e, on a pr evi ous occa s i on i n J une 2004, he had found a kni fe i n t he pos s es s i on of A r el l ano and w as aw ar e thatA r el l ano “w as i nvol ved i n a l otof nar cot i cs t r ans act i on. ” I d. at26. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cerA r agon, i n hi s exper i ence “a l otof t i m es nar cot i cs and fi r earm s ar e s ynonym ous . ” I d. T h e o ffice rs te stified th a t w h e n O ffice r A ra g o n to ld P e e k h e w a s g o in g to conducta pat - dow n s ear ch, Peek exc l ai m ed “no! ” I d. at24. O ffi cerA r agon then as ked Peek i f he ha d a w eapon, and Peek f i r s tr es ponded nega t i vel y , t hen s t at ed th a t h e d id h a v e a w e a p o n . T h e o ffice rs th e n d re w th e ir w e a p o n s, to ld P e e k to- 5-

pl ace hi s hands on t op of hi s head, “opene d [Peek’ s ] j acke tand s aw a bl ack s houl derhol s t erw i t h a s t ai nl es s r evol veri ns i de” i t . I d. at25. Peek w as pl ace d underarr es tand i ndi ct ed on one c ountof vi ol at i ng 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), b a se d o n h is p o ss e ss io n o f th e fire a rm a f

ter a p rio r sta te convi ct i on forat t empt ed es cape . H e fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s t he fi r earm as evi dence , ar gui ng t hatt he off i cer s det ai ned and s ear ched hi m i n vi ol at i on of the F ou rth A m end m ent. F oll ow i ng a heari ng , t he d i stri ctcou rtheld that the o ffi cers ’ i ni t i al det ent i on of Peek w as val i d bas ed on the off i cer s ’ r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hat Peek w as i nvol ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y . A s s es s i ng t he fa ctual di s put e betw een Peek and the off

i cer s overw hetherPeek had a ctual l ygi ven a fal s e name w hen the o ffice rs first e n ter e d A re llan o ’s r o o m , the c o u rt sta ted th a t ith a d “ n o re a so n to q u e s tio n th e p a ro le o ffic e rs ’ c re d ib ility.” O rd e r a t 7 , R . V o l. I , d o c . 2 3 . H ow ever , t he courts t at ed thati t s det er m i nat i on of w hethert he off i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatPeek w as arm ed and da nger ous “does nothi nge on w hether[Peek] l i ed abouthi s name” buti ns t ead r equi r ed r efe r ence t o “other s peci fi c fa ct s . ” I d. at8. T he courtexpl ai ned i t s concl us i on t hatt her e w as reas on able s uspici on j ust i fy i ng a pat- do w n search as foll ow s:

I ti s uncont es t ed thatbot h offi cer s ar e expe r i ence d i n t he tac tics a n d c irc u m sta n c e s o f n a rc o tics u se a n d tra ffick in g . A n d it i s w ell k n o w n to b o th p o li ce an d p aro le office rs th at w ea p o n s are fr equent l yus ed t o pr ot ectdrug s uppl i es . T he off i cer s confr ont ed A re lla n o a n d [ P e e k ] i n A re lla n o ’s s m a ll, c lu tte re d b e d ro o m , a confi ned s pace , her“tur f. ” The offi cer s w er e dea l i ng w i t h s us pect ed- 6-

nar cot i cs us er s and/ ort r aff i cker s , eac h of w hom w as ei t her[under i nt ens i ve s upervi s i on] orhad bee n on par ol e. O ffi cerA r agon found a n i l l egal kni fe on A r el l ano’ s per s on a few m ont hs befor e the bedr oom encount er . T he off i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hats he mi ghtbe arm ed. [Peek] cont ends t hat dur i ng hi s par ol e, he w as cooper at i ve, neverarm ed, and neve r cons i der ed a thr eat . W hi l e thos e fa ct s w er e ver i fi ed byO ffi cer A r agon dur i ng hi s t es t i m ony , t heycarr yl i t t l e w ei ghtundert he ci rcum st ances. T he off i cer s w er e ther e undert hei rauthor i t yt o obt ai n a ur i ne s ampl e fr om A r el l ano. I n t he conf i ned s pace of the bas ement bedr oom w i t h one exi t , [Peek] w as obvi ous l ynervous . H e w as s w eat i ng and fi dget i ng. H e w as i nvol ved w i t h a know n drug us er and drug s el l erw ho had an i l l egal w eapon i n t he pas t . A nd he pr obabl yl i ed abouthi s name. I concl ude thatgi ven the t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , bot h offi cer s had more than s uffi ci entr eas onabl e, ar t i cul abl e s us pi ci on t o bel i eve that[Peek] m i ghtbe arm ed and dan gerous. I d. at9. T he courtt hus deni ed Peek’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . A s i ndi cat ed above , Peek ent er ed a c ondi t i onal gui l t ypl ea a nd appea l ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on.

DI S CU S S I ON W hen revi ew i ng t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of a m oti on t o sup press e v id e n c e , “‘w e v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, acc eptt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunl es s cl ear l yerr oneous , and r evi ew de n o v o th e u lti m a te d e ter m in a tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rthI ti s undi s put ed thatC ol or ado par ol e off i cer s ar e pea ce offi cer s under 1 C ol or ado l aw , “w hos e author i t ys hal l i ncl ude the enfor cementof al l l aw s of the s t a t e o f Co l o r a d o , ” Co l o . Re v . S t a t . § 1 6 - 2 . 5 - 1 3 6 , a n d wh o a r e s u bj e c tt o t h e s a me cert i fi cat i on and tr ai ni ng r equi r ement s as anypol i ce offi cer , i d. § 16- 2. 5- 102.

- 7- A m endment . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. A pper s on, 441 F. 3d 1162, 1184 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . K atoa , 3 2 9 F . 3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )). T he d i stri ctcou rtanaly zed the even t s l eading u p to the p arol e offi cers ’ di s coveryof Peek’ s fi r earm us i ng t he fr amew or k s etfor t h fori nves t i gat i ve d e ten tio n s b yp o lice o ffice rs in T e rryv . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 (1 9 6 8 ). N e ith e r p a rty cont es t s T err y ’ s appl i cabi l i t y , and w e agr ee i t appl i es her e. U nderT err y , “[a ] 1 law fu l i n v esti g ati v e d eten ti o n o f li m it ed sco p e a n d d u rati o n d o es n o t r eq u ir e pr obabl e ca us e as l ong as t he pol i ce offi cerhas r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatt he per s on s ei zed i s engage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D enni s on, 410 F. 3d 12 03 , 12 07 ( 10 t h Ci r . ) ( c i t i ng Terr y , 39 2 U. S. a t30 - 31 ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 12 6 S. C t. 46 8 (2 0 0 5 ). D u rin g su c h a d e ten tio n , the o ffice r “ m a ya lso c o n d u c t a pr ot ect i ve fr i s k of the s us pect ’ s out ercl ot hi ng i f he r eas onabl ybel i eves t hatt he s us pectm i ghtbe arm ed and da nger ous . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M addox, 388 F. 3d 1356, 1361 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng T err y , 392 U . S. at27, 30) . H er e, Peek ar gues th a t th e p a ro le o ffice rs la c k e d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n th a t h e w a s in v o lv e d in cr i m i nal act i vi t yw hen theyi ni t i al l ydet ai ned hi m , and thatt he off i cer s l acke d a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hathe w as arm ed and da nger ous att he t i m e O ffi cerA r agon ann ou nced he w as going t o p erform a pat- do w n search for w eapo ns.- 8-

I . I ni t i al D et ent i on A l t hough t he governm entand Peek di s agr ee on w hetherPeek w as “s ei zed” forFour t h A m endment purpos es att he mom entt he par ol e off i cer s appea r ed att he door w ayof A r el l ano’ s bedr oom , t he governm entdoes notdi s put e the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s concl us i on t hat , att he l at es t , Peek w as s ei zed a tt he poi ntt hatO ffi cer A r agon demanded hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e t o run a w arr ant s chec k. W e agr ee w i t h t he d istric t co u rt. A t th a t p o in t, th e tw o o ffice rs w e re b lo c k in g th e e n tra n c e to A r el l ano’ s bedr oom , and the ci r cumst ance s , as des cr i bed above , m ade i tcl eart hat Peek w as notfr ee t o l eave . C om par e U ni t ed St at es v. L opez, 443 F. 3d 1280, 1286 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t he defendantw as s ei zed w her e ci r cumst ance s and offi cer s ’ behavi orm ade c l eart hatt he defendantw as notfr ee t o r efus e t o pr ovi de hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e orfr ee t o l eave ) , w i t h U ni t ed St at es v. E s par za- M endoza , 386 F. 3d 953, 960 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t he defendantw as nots ei zed unde rt he circu m stan ce s alt h o u g h p o li ce h ad req u ested h is i d en ti fica ti o n ). Peek ar gues t hatt hi s s ei zur e w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e the off i cer s l acke d anyr eas onabl e s us pi ci on of w r ongdoi ng par t i cul art o hi m s el f, r athert han A r el l ano, w hen theyarr i ved atA r el l ano’ s bedr oom door . H e poi nt s outt hat “G urul e neve rm ent i oned [Pee k] byname orphy s i cal des cr i pt i on, nordi d he al l ege ha vi ng obs erved anys peci fi c i l l egal conductbyM r . Peek, ” and c ont ends t hatG urul e’ s r efe r ence t o a “they ” w ho w er e “a ti tagai n” dow ns t ai r s w as t ooO f cour s e, A r el l ano’ s ow n pr i vacyi nt er es t s w er e di m i ni s hed s i nce s he w as 2 undert he ac t i ve s upervi s i on of the C ol or ado Par ol e D i vi s i on. See G r i ffi n v. W i s cons i n, 483 U . S. 868, 873- 74 ( 1987) ; U ni t ed St at es v. L ew i s , 71 F. 3d 358, 3 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ).

- 9- vague t o pr ovi de a ba s i s forr eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hathe w as i nvol ved i n any cr i m i nal act i vi t y . A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at12. W e di s agr ee. A s Peek conc edes , t he par ol e off i cer s cert ai nl yhad a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, bas ed on O ffi cerC l ement i ’ s ow n obs er vat i ons and G urul e’ s s t at ement s , t hat A r el l ano w as i nvol ved i n drug- r el at ed cr i m i nal act i vi t y . G urul e’ s page of 2 O ffi cer C l em enti and G urul e’s st at em ents w hen t he o ffi cers enter ed the ho use in d ica ted th a t A re llan o a n d w h o e v e r w a s w ith h e r d o w n sta irs w e re c u rre n tly e n g a g in g in su c h a c tiv ity . W h e n th e o ffice rs a rriv e d a t A re llan o ’s r o o m , the o n ly p e rso n th e re o th e r th a n A re llan o w a s P e e k . W e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t

“ [ r]e a so n a b le s u sp icio n is a les s d e m a n d in g sta n d a rd th a n p ro b a b le c a u se n o t o n lyin th e se n se th a t re a so n a b le s u sp icio n c a n b e e sta b lish e d w ith i nfo rm at i on t hat i s di fferenti n q uan t i t yor contentt han t hat r equ i red t o est abli sh pr obabl e ca us e, butal s o i n t he s ens e thatr eas onabl e s us pi ci on can a r i s e fr om in fo rm a tio n th a t is le s s re lia b le th a n th a t r e q u ir e d to s h o w p ro b a b le c a u s e .” U ni t ed St at es v. V al enzue l a, 365 F. 3d 892, 896 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng A lab a m a v . W h ite, 4 9 6 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 3 0 (1 9 9 0 )). It w a s n o t n e c e ss a ryth a t G u ru le s peci fi cal l ygi ve Peek’ s name ordes cr i pt i on i n or derfort he off i cer s t o have r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hathe w as i nvol ved i n w hat evercr i m i nal act i vi t ym i ghtbe afo o t. U n d er the circu m stan ce s h ere , w e h o ld tha t th e p aro le office rs w ere- 10-

j us t i fi ed i n det ai ni ng Peek s o t hatt heym i ghts eek t o confi r m ordi s pel t hat s us pi ci on.

I I . Pat - D ow n Se ar c h for W e apo ns P e e k a lso a rg u e s th a t at th e tim e O ffice r A ra g o n d e c lar e d h is in ten tio n to per for m a pat - dow n s ear ch of Pee k forw eapons , t he off i cer s di d nothave a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hathe w as arm ed and da nger ous . A s i ndi cat ed above , t he di s t r i ctcour thel d t hata pat - dow n s ear ch w as j us t i fi ed att hatpoi ntbas ed on ( 1) t he par ol e off

i cer s ’ r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatA r el l ano and Pee k w er e “na r cot i cs u se rs a n d /o r tra ffick e rs,” a n d th e c o n n e c tio n th e o ffice rs d re w , b a se d o n th e ir exper i ence , betw een drug t r aff i cki ng and w eapons , ( 2) O ffi cerA r agon’ s pr evi ous e x p e ri e n c e “ f[ in d in g ] a n ille g a l k n ife o n A re lla n o ’s p e rs o n a fe w m o n th s b e fo re ,” (3 ) “ th e c o n fin e d [ a n d c lu tte re d ] s p a c e o f th e b a s e m e n t b e d ro o m w ith o n e e x it,” (4) P ee k ’s ne rvo u sn ess, i n clud ing h is ex ce ssive sw ea ti n g , (5) P ee k ’s “i nvol ve[ment ] w i t h” A r el l ano, “a know n drug us erand drug s el l erw ho had an i l l egal w eapon i n t he pas t , ” ( 6) and the court ’ s concl us i on t hat , i n acc or d w i t h t he o ffi c e r s ’ v e r s i o n o f

e v e n t s , P e e k “ p r o b a b l yl i e d a b o u th i s n a me . ” Or d e ra t9 , R. V ol . I , doc. 23. Peek cont ends t hat“[n] one of thes e r eas ons i s s uffi ci ent , ” A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at16, and att empt s t o di s cr edi teac h fac t oras a j us t i fi cat i on forbel i evi ng P ee k w as a rm ed an d d an g ero u s. S p ec ifi ca ll y , P ee k arg u es (1 ) th at a su sp ec t’ s- 11-

nervous nes s does notpr ovi de a pr operbas i s fors us pect i ng t hathe i s arm ed, ( 2) t hatt her e i s no r eas onabl e conne ct i on betw een A r el l ano’ s pr i orpos s es s i on of a k n ife a n d the s u sp ici o n that P ee k m igh t po sses s a w ea p o n , (3) tha t th e o fficers had no bas i s fors us pect i ng Peek of drug t r aff i cki ng, as oppos ed t o drug us e, and drug us e al one i s notas s oci at ed w i t h w eapon pos s es s i on, ( 4) t hatt he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatPeek “pr obabl y ” l i ed abouthi s name i s cl ear l yerr oneous beca us e i tw oul d m ake no s ens e forPeek t o l i e abouthi s name t o O ffi cerA r agon, hi s for m erpar ol e off

i cer , ( 5) t hatt he hei ght ened s afe t yconce r ns t hatar i s e w hen offi cer s ar e i ns i de a home ar e i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta pat - dow n s ear ch. H ow ever, i n d et erm i ning w hetherreas on able s uspici on exis t ed, w e m ust t ake i nt o acc ountt he t ot al i t yof ci r cumst ance s , “cons i der [i ng] w hethert he fa ct s as a w hol e ‘ amount t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, ’ ” eve n w her e “e ach s epar at e fa ctor obs ervat i on . . . ‘ i s notbyi t s el f pr oof of a nyi l l egal conduct . ’ ” D enni s on, 410 F . 3 d a t1 2 0 8 ( q u o t i n g Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S o k o l o w, 4 9 0 U. S . 1 , 8 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ) . T h u s , we h a v e h e ld th a t w h ile “ typ ic a l n e rv o u s n e s s a lo n e . . . is o f lim ite d s ig n ific a n c e ,” nervous nes s “i s s t i l l among t he pert i nentfac t or s a r eas onabl e l aw enfor cement offi cerw oul d anal y ze . . . and s houl d notbe compl et el ydi s r egar ded” w hen r evi ew i ng t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 364 F. 3d 1185, 1192 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. H a rris, 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (h o ld in g c o u rt “ m a ytak e in to acc ountD efe ndant ’ s nervous behavi ori n det er m i ni ng w hether. . . [a] pr ot ect i ve- 12-

fr i s k w as j us t i fi ed”) . Si m i l ar l y , “the natur e of the ar ea i n w hi ch a de t ent i on t akes pl ace i s a r el evantcons i der at i on. ” J ohns on, 364 F. 3d at1193; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Shar eef, 100 F. 3d 1491, 1506 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( t aki ng i nt o acc ountt he fac tt hatt he pol i ce offi cer s had det ai ned the s us pect s “i n t hei rcar s , atni ght , ” and

“ c o u ld n o t tell w h e th e r th e [ y ] h a d w e a p o n s o n th e ir p e rso n s o r w ith in re a c h ,” in u p h o lding a T erryp at-do w n sea rch ). H er e, Peek notonl yappea r ed nervous but , acc or di ng t o t he off i cer s , w as sw e a tin g p ro f

u se ly . T h e c lu ttere d n a tu re o f A re llan o ’s b e d ro o m m a d e it d ifficu lt fort he off

i cer s t o det erm i ne w hetherw eapons m i ghtbe hi dden ther e. T he fa ct that the o fficers w ere in A rell an o ’s ho m e terri tory , an d the fac t th at th e o fficers w er e s t andi ng i n t he doorw ay , t hus bl ocki ng anym eans of es cape , pr ovi ded a cont extt hatr eas onabl yr ai s ed the off i cer s ’ s afe t yconce r ns . M or eover , Peek w as w eari ng a j acket, w hich cou l d als o easi l ycon ceal a w eapo n. A l l of these fact ors, w hil e no tdis po si t i ve b yt hem sel ves, are r el evan tt o the analy si s. I n r egar d t o Peek’ s chal l enge t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hathe

“ p ro b a b ly” l ie d a b o u t h is n a m e , w e d is a g re e th a t th is fin d in g is c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . A s th e d istric t co u rt e x p lain e d , itw a s c o n c e iv a b le th a t P e e k m ig h t h a v e lied to O ffi cerC l ement i , w ho ent er ed A r el l ano’ s bedr oom fi r s t , befor e not i ci ng t hather compani on, O ffi cerA r agon, w as hi s for m erpar ol e off i cer . T hi s fac tual fi ndi ng t her efor e r emai ns r el evantal t hough i ti s cl eart hatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notpl ace greatw ei gh ton t his fact or i n it s “ar m ed an d d ang erous” analy si s.- 13-

O f g re a ter sig n ifica n c e is th e p o in t th a t th e o ffice rs h a d a re a so n a b le s us pi ci on t hatei t herA r el l ano orPeek orbot h m i ghtbe i nvol ved i n t r aff i cki ng drugs . U ni t ed St at es v. H i s haw , 235 F. 3d 565, 570 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hat a reas on able s uspici on t hat the d efen dan t“w as di stri bu t i ng drugs . . . al so i ndi cat ed thathe mi ghtbe arm ed and da nger ous ” bas ed on the conne ct i on betw een drug t r aff

i cki ng and w eapons ) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 188 F. 3d 860, 865 ( 7t h C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng t hati ndi cat i ons t hata s us pectm i ghtbe i nvol ved i n drug t r aff

i cki ng “contr i but ed t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hat[he] w as arm ed and danger ous ” bec aus e “[ d] rug deal i ng i s a cr i m e i nfus ed w i t h vi ol ence ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W oodal l , 938 F. 2d 834, 837 ( 8t h C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng t hatpol i ce offi cer ’ s r ecogni t i on t hatan i ndi vi dual had r ece nt l ybeen arr es t ed fornar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng contr i but ed t o hi s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatt he i ndi vi dual w as arm ed and da nger ous ) . A s i ndi cat ed, Peek cha l l enges t he not i on t hatt her e w as anyi ndi cat i on t hathe w as i nvol ved i n drug t r aff i cki ng, and ar gues t hatt o t he ext enta s us pi ci on of drug us e w as j us t i fi ed, s i m pl e drug us e i s not as s oci at ed w i t h w eapons i n t he w ayt hatdrug t r aff i cki ng i s . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. W al d, 216 F. 3d 1222, 1226- 27 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hata pol i ce o ffi c e rwh o h a d i n i t i a t e d a t r a ffi c s t o p wa s n o tj u s t i fi e d i n c o n d u c t i n g a p a t - d o wn s ear ch w her e he “ s us pect ed ‘ drug us age, ’ ” s m el l ed burntm ethamphet ami ne, w h ich is “ in d ica tiv e o f d ru g u sa g e , rath e r th a n d ru g tra ffick in g ,” th e d e fe n d a n ts appea r ed nervous , and one ha d “bl oods hot , gl as s y ” ey es ) . A tor al ar gum ent , Peek- 14-

emphasi zed thati ti s farl i kel i ert hatt he drug pur chas erw i l l vi s i tt he drug deal er to m ak e a p u rch ase rathe r th an the o ther w ayaro u n d , su g g esti n g that the o fficers s houl d have a s s um ed Peek t o be the buy eri n anydrug t r ans act i on t heys us pect ed w as occurr i ng i n A r el l ano’ s bedr oom . O f cour s e, Peek’ s s ugges t ed s cena r i o does nott ake i nt o acc ountt he fa ctt hatA r el l ano w as underi nt ens i ve s upervi s i on, w hi ch l i kel yl i m i t ed herfr eedom of m ovementout s i de herr es i dence . In a n yc a se , h o w e v e r, th e o ffice rs in th is s itu a tio n w e re n o t re q u ire d to li m ittheir safetyco n ce rns to A rell an o . Itis true that an ind ividu al’s “‘m ere pr opi nqui t yt o ot her s ’ ” r eas onabl ybel i eved t o be arm ed and da nger ous does not byi t s el f j us t i fya pat - dow n s ear ch of thati ndi vi dual . D enni s on, 410 F. 3d at1211 ( quot i ng Y barr a v. I l l i noi s , 444 U . S. 85, 91 ( 1979) ) . H ow ever , unl i ke i n Y barr a, w her e a s ear ch of a n i ndi vi dual w ho had coi nci dent al l ybeen a cus t om eri n a publ i c t avern dur i ng t he exe cut i on of a s ear ch w arr antw as found unr eas onabl e, 444 U . S. at92- 93, Peek’ s pr es ence i n A r el l ano’ s bedr oom coul d notbe cons t rued as m er e coi nci dence . R ather , i ti ndi cat ed a c onnect i on betw een the tw o, and G u ru le’ s s tate m e n t w h e n th e o ffice rs e n ter e d th e h o u se su g g e ste d th a t th is c o n n e c tio n in v o lv e d ill e g a l d ru g a c tiv ityo f so m e k in d . G u ru le’ s p rio r sta tem e n ts s ugges t ed thatt he ac t i vi t ym i ghti nvol ve drug t r aff i cki ng. A r el l ano’ s pr i or p o ss e ss io n o f

a k n ife re in fo rc e d th e su sp icio n th a t w e a p o n s m ig h t b e p re se n t, pos s i bl ypas s ed fr om A r el l ano t o Peek i f theyhear d t he off i cer s comi ng dow n t he st ai rs .T he governm entr ai s es a number of al t ernat i ve ar gum ent s i n s uppor tof the 3 d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g . B e c a u se w e u p h o ld th e ru lin g o n th e g ro u n d s s e t fo rth here, w e need no tadd res s the g ov ernm ent’ s addit i on al argum ents .

- 15- U nd er these ci rcum st ances, view i ng t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he governm ent , an expe r i ence d offi cer , t aki ng i nt o acc ountt he to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s, in c lu d in g th e fa c to rs m e n tio n e d a b o v e , co u ld r eas onabl ys us pectt hatPeek w as arm ed and pr es ent l ydanger ous . See D enni s on, 410 F. 3d at1213 ( uphol di ng a pr ot ect i ve s w eep of defe ndant ’ s t ruck w hen pas s engerw as r eas onabl ycons i der ed arm ed and da nger ous w her e ther e w as r eas on t o bel i eve the defendantand the pas s engerw er e enga ged i n a comm on i l l egal ent erpr i s e) ; Shar eef, 100 F. 3d at1506 ( concl udi ng pol i ce ha d a “r eas onabl e bel i ef thatt he defendant s pos ed a da nger ” w her e pol i ce s us pect ed one ind ividu al of

b eing arm ed an d d an g ero u s, k n ew the o ther d efen d an ts w ere tr av eli n g w ith h im , an d h ad rea so n ab le su sp ici o n the o ther d efen d an ts w ere i nvol ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y ) . W e ther efor e uphol d t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on th a t O ffice r A ra g o n w a s ju stified in in iti a tin g th e p a t-d o w n se a rc h , an d a ffirm its den i al of P eek’s m oti on t o sup press . 3- 16- CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge