[PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 55 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :1 1- cr-0 01 24 -RBD- MCR

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
KAREEN RASUL GRIFFIN,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 , 20 12 )

Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN and ALARCÓN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. *

JOR DAN, Circu it Ju dg e:

Honora ble Arthur L

. Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitti ng by * desig nation. Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 19Doe s a co ns ti tu ti on al ly va li d st op an d fri sk be co m e u n r e a s o n ab le un de r th e

Fo ur th A m endm en t whe n th e of fic er as ks so m e br ie f qu es ti on s un rel at ed to th e reas on

fo r th e st op an d th e pu rp os e of th e fri sk ? The di st ric t co ur t th ou gh t so , an d su pp res se d

th e an swe rs to th os e qu es ti on s an d am m un it io n fo un d aft er th e an swe rs were

pr ov id ed

. W e rev ers e, co nc lu di ng th at th e qu es ti on s po se d di d no t co nv ert a

pe rm is si bl e en co un te r in to an un co ns ti tu ti on al on e.

I

Fo ur th Am en dm en t cas es are in he ren tl y fact -in te n s i v e , so we be gi n wit h th e

di st ric t co ur t’s fa ct ua l fi nd in gs , whi ch are n ot ch al le ng ed on ap pe al

.
On Feb ru ary 22 , 20 11 , Offi cer Ja y Edwa r d s , a pa tro l of fic er wit h th e

Ja ck so nv il le Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, res po nd ed to an un ve rif ie d 91 1 cal l fro m Rai nb ow

Kid s, a ch il dr en ’s cl ot hi ng st or e in Ja ck so nv il le , Fl or id a. Offi cer Edwar ds was 1

fam il ia r wit h th e st rip m al l whe re th e st or e was lo cat ed

. He kn ew th at th ere was dr ug

act iv it y in th e su rro un di ng area an d th at th ere ha d be en se ve ral bu rg la rie s in th e m al l.

Offi cer Edwar ds arri ve d at ap pr ox im at el y 8: 57 p.m

. The st or e’s se cu rit y gu ard

cam e ru nn in g ou t an d in fo rm ed hi m th at a m an ha d at te m pt ed to st eal so m e cl ot hi ng

.
The gu ard po in te d to an d i d e n t i f i e d a m al e walk in g qu ic kl y away fro m th e st or e as

An unverifie d 911 call, Offic er Edwar ds testifi ed, is one in which someone place s an 1

emer g ency

call but does not say

any thing to the ope rator.

2 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 2 of 19th e pe rs on who co m m it te d th e at te m

pt ed th eft

. The re were si x to ei gh t pe op le in th e

di re c t i o n w he re th e gu ard po in te d, bu t Mr. Grif fin was th e on ly on e who fit th e

gu ard ’s des cri pt io n o f “ th e b la ck m an in th e g reen jacke t an d jean s.”

Ret ur ni ng to hi s ve hi cl e, Offi cer Edwar ds fo ll owe d Mr. Grif fin , who co nt in ue d

to lo ok ov er his sh ou ld er and walk away br is kl y

. Offi cer Edward s go t ou t of his car

an d to ld Mr. Grif

fin to st op

. W he n Mr. Grif fin di so be y ed hi s co m

m an d an d co nt in ue d

to walk away—in wha t th e di s t r i c t co ur t de sc rib ed as ev as iv e be ha vi or —Offi cer

Edwar ds ap pr oa ch ed Mr. Griffi n, pu t bo th ha nd s on on e of hi s wris ts , an d in fo rm ed

hi m th at he was in ve st ig at in g a pe ti t th eft

. Mr. Grif fin s a i d t h a t h e ha d no t st ol en

an y th in g. Offi cer Edwar ds ne ve rth el es s fri sk ed Mr. Grif fin to en su re hi s own sa fet y

.
Dur in g th e fri sk , Offi cer Edwar ds fel t wha t he “ be li ev ed to be ” C-ce ll ba tt eri es

in Mr. G r i f

f i n ’s ba ck le ft po ck et

. Offi cer Edwar ds di d no t, ho wev er, reac h in to th e

po ck et

. In st ead , be cau se he “ was n’t ex act ly su re wha t [th e it em s] were,” an d be cau se

“ it was od d th at so m eo ne was carr yi n g aro un d

. . . C-ce ll ba tt eri es ,” he as ke d Mr.

Grif fin , “ Hey , wha t’s in y ou r po ck et ? W hy do y ou ha ve ba tt eri es ? ” Se e R2 :1 0, 30 , 33

.
Mr. Grif fin res po nd ed th a t th e it em s were sh ot gu n sh el ls an d no t ba tt eri es

. Offi cer

Edwar ds th en as ke d Mr. Grif fin if he ha d ev er be en to pr is on , an d Mr. Gri f fin

an swe red “ y es .” Se e R2 :1 1. Afte r Offi cer Edwar ds in fo rme d h i m th at it was il le ga l

f o r f e l o ns to po ss es s weap on s or am m un it io n, Mr. Grif

fin be ga n to fle e. Offi cer

3 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 3 of 19Edwar ds ev en tu al ly arre st ed Mr. Grif fin , who w a s c h a rg ed wit h be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a m

m un it io n. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ).

Mr. Grif fin m ov ed to su pp res s th e am m un it io n an d th e st at em en ts he m ad e to

Offi cer Edwar ds

. Fo ll owi ng a n e v id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

m ot io n to su pp res s. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e in it ia l sto p by Offi cer Edward s

was pr op er, bu t ev en as su m in g th at th e en su in g fri sk was pe rm is si bl e, Offi cer

Edwar ds ’ qu es ti on s t o Mr. Grif fin were u nr el at ed to th e at te m pt ed th eft or t he fri sk

fo r weap on s. As a res ul t, th e qu es ti on s be cam e an un reas on ab le se arch whe n Offi cer

Edwar ds co nt in ue d to “ pr ob e an d in ve st ig at e” ab ou t th e it em s he fel t in Mr. Grif fin ’s

po ck et

. And be cau se th e sh ot gu n sh el ls were no t th em se lv es co nt rab an d or ev id en ce

of a cri m e, Offi ce Edwar ds ’ fu rth er in ve st ig at io n— e.g ., as ki ng Mr. Grif fin if he ha d

ev er be en to pr is on —“ was co nst itu tio na lly in va li d.” The di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed th at

th e si m pl e act of po li ce qu es ti on in g do es no t co ns ti tu te a se iz ur e, bu t co nc lu de d th at

Offi cer Edwa r d s ’ act io ns “ wen t be y on d th e sc op e ne ces sa ry to en su re hi s sa fet y or

th e sa fet y of th os e aro un d h i m,” an d su pp res se d Mr. Grif fin ’s st at em en ts an d th e

sh ot gu n sh el ls as “ fru it s of th e po is on ou s tre e.” Se e W on g Su n v. Uni te d St at es , 37 1

U.S. 47 1, 4 87 -8 8 (1 96 3)

.
II

“ Bec au se ru li ng s on m ot io ns to su pp res s in vo lv e m ix ed qu es ti on s of fact an d

4 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 4 of 19la w, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r, an d it s ap pl ic at io n

of th e la w to th e fact s de no vo

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Lewi s , 67 4 F.3 d 12 98 , 13 02 -0 3 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. As no te d earl ie r, th e fact s he re are no t

in di sp ut e.

A

The Fo ur th Am en dm e n t g u a r an te es “ [t]he rig ht of th e pe op le to be se cu re in

th ei r pe rs on s, ho us es , pa pe rs , a n d e ffec ts , ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es an d

se iz ur es [.]” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at “ po li ce can st op

an d bri efl y de ta in a pe rs on fo r in ve st ig at iv e pu rp os es if th e of fic er has a reas on ab le

su sp ic io n su pp or te d by art ic ul ab le fact s th at cri m in al act iv it y ‘m ay be afo ot ,’ ev en if

th e o f f i c e r la ck s pr ob ab le cau se .” Uni te d St at es v. So ko lo w , 49 0 U.S. 1, 7 (1 98 9)
( q u o ti ng Ter ry v. Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1 (1 96 8) ). To de te rm in e th e le ga li ty o f a n

in ve st ig at or y st op un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, we fir st as cert ai n whe th er th e st op

was jus ti fie d at it s in cep ti on

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. St re et , 47 2 F.3 d 12 98 , 13 06 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 06 ). W e th en as k whe th er th e of fic er’s act io ns were reas on ab ly rel at ed in sc op e

to th e ci rcu m st an ces th at jus ti fie d th e st op in th e fir st pl ace. Se e id

. In m ak in g th es e

as se ss m en ts , we l o o k a t “ th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces —t he who le pi ct ur e[.]”

Uni te d S ta te s v. C

or te z , 44 9 U.S. 4 11 , 41 7 (1 98 1)

.
It is un di sp ut ed th at th e in i t i a l s t o p of Mr. Grif fin was co ns ti tu ti on al ly

5 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 5 of 19pe rm is si bl e, as Offi cer Edwar ds reas on ab ly su sp ect ed th at Mr. Grif fin ha d tri ed t o

st eal so m e it em s of cl ot hi ng

. Not on ly di d th e se cu rit y gu ard de sc rib e Mr. Grif fin as

th e pe rp et rat or , se e, e.g

. , Mor el li v. W eb st er , 55 2 F. 3 d 1 2 , 1 9

- 2 0 (1 st Ci r. 20 09 )
( r e a so na bl e su sp ic io n of th eft pr ov id ed ba si s fo r Ter ry st op ), Mr. Grif fin be ha ve d

ev as iv el y an d re fu se d t o o be y

Offic er Edward s’ com m an d t o s to p, se e, e.g

. , Ill in oi s

v. W ar dl ow , 52 8 U.S. 11 9, 12 4 (2 00 0) (n e r v o u s an d ev as iv e be ha vi or is a rel ev an t

fact or in de te rm in in g reas on able sus pic ion, an d fli gh t, th e co ns um m at e act of ev as io n,

is su gg es ti ve of wro ng do in g)

. We t h e r e fo re m ov e on to wha t tra ns pi red du rin g th e

st op

.
B

The di st ric t co ur t as su m ed , wit ho ut de ci di ng , th at Offi cer Edwar ds ’ pa t-d own

was va li d at it s in cep ti on

. Mr. Grif fin qu es ti on s th is as su m

pt io n, as se rti ng th at th e

fri sk was un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se Offi c er Edwar ds di d no t ha ve th e req ui red

reas on ab le su sp ic io n th at he was arm ed an d da ng ero us

. The go ve rn m en t, fo r it s pa rt,

co nt en ds th at Offi cer Edwar ds ’ fri sk of Mr. Grif fin was jus ti fie d

. Th e go ve rn m en t,

we th in k, h as th e b et te r of th e arg um en t.

Onc e an of

fic er ha s st op pe d an in di vi du al , he m ay co nd uc t a pa t-d own or fri sk

fo r weap on s if he reas on ab ly be li ev es th at hi s sa fet y , or th e sa fe t y o f ot he rs , is

th reat en ed

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. W hi te , 5 93 F.3 d 11 99 , 1 20 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

6 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 6 of 19Mr. Grif

fin rel ie s o n t h e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s th at “ th ere [was ] no ev id en ce th at

wou ld sugg es t [Mr

. Grif

fin ] ‘[was] arm ed an d pr es en tl y da ng ero us ,’ ” an d no ev id en ce

th at Mr. Grif

fin “ th reat en ed to us e a w e a p o n or us ed a weap on in th e al le ge d

ex ecu ti on of th e pe ti t th e f t

. ” B u t T er ry do es no t de m an d de fin it iv e ev id en ce of a

weap on or a bs ol ut e cer ta in ty tha t an in di vi du al is arm ed

. The pro ces s o f ev al ua ti ng

whe th er reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is ts un de r Ter ry “ do es no t de al wit h ha rd cert ai nt ie s,

bu t wit h pr ob ab il it ie s.” Co rt ez , 44 9 U.S. at 41 8. “ ‘[T] he is su e is whe th er a reas on ab ly

pr ud en t m an in th e ci rcu m st an ces wou ld be warra nt ed in th e be li ef th at hi s sa fet y or

th at of ot he rs was in da ng er.’” W hi te , 59 3 F.3 d at 12 02 -0 3 (q uo ti ng Ter ry , 39 2 U.S.

at 27 ).

W he n ev al ua ti ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we do no t co ns id er each fact

in is ol at io n, se e Uni te d St at es v. Hun te r , 29 1 F.3d 13 02 , 13 06 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ), an d

he re we co nc lu de th at th e fact s kn own by Offi cer Edwar ds at th e ti m e pe rm it te d hi m

to fri sk Mr. G r i ffi n co ns is te nt wit h th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Fi rs t, Offi cer Edwar ds

was al on e at ni gh t in a hi gh cri m e area , an d ha d no t be en to ld an y th in g sp eci fic ab ou t

Mr. Grif fin , ot he r th an th at he ha d tri ed to st eal so m e it em s of cl ot hi ng

. Seco nd , Mr.

Grif fin —wh o was in th e vi ci ni ty of si x to ei gh t ot he r pe rs on s— act ed ev as iv el y an d

refu se d to ob ey Offi cer Edwar ds ’ co m m an d th at he st op

. Thi rd , Offi cer Edwar ds ha d

no t fin is he d in ve st ig at in g th e al le ge d at te m pt ed th eft

. Se e Uni ted St at es v. Moo re , 81 7

7 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 7 of 19F.2 d 11 05 , 11 08 (4 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (“ The ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e st op su pp or t

th e of fic er’s be li ef th at a fu rth er fri sk fo r weap on s was warra nt ed

. The ho ur was la te ,
th e st reet was da rk , th e of fic er w a s a l o n e , an d th e su sp ect ed cri m e was bu rg la ry , a

fel on y th at of

te n in vo lv es th e us e of weap on s.”)

. Se e al so Hun te r , 29 1 F.3 d at 13 06

-

07 (o f f i c e r co ul d co nd uc t fri sk un de r Ter ry whe re en co un te r to ok pl ace in a hi gh

cri m e area , in di vi du al who was se en ob se rv in g il le ga l ga m bl in g walk ed away qu ic kl y

whe n th e po li ce ap pr oa ch ed , an d of fic er sa w bu lg e in in di vi du al ’s wais tb an d) ; Uni te d

St at es v. Ald

ri dg e , 71 9 F.2 d 36 8, 37 2 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 19 83 ) (“ Hav in g m ad e a va li d

in ve st ig at iv e st op of a ve hi cl e co nt ai ni ng th ree m en in a po or ly li t area in th e m id dl e

of th e ni gh t pu rs ua nt to a rad io rep or t t ha t th e su sp ect s m ay ha ve be en in vo lv ed in

cri m in al act iv it y [i.e ., ta m pe rin g wit h a ve hi cl e], [th e of fic er] was en ti tl ed to ta ke

reas on ab le m eas ur es to ne ut ral iz e th e th reat of ph y si cal ha rm .”). The Eig ht h Ci rcu it

ha s no te d, in up h o l d i n g a fri sk fo r weap on s of a pe rs on su sp ect ed of st eal in g a

bi cy cl e, th at “ it is no t in c o n c e i v a b l e ” fo r a po li ce of fic er to be li ev e th at a “ th ie f

po ss es se d a weap on ,” Uni te d S ta te s v. Ba nk s , 55 3 F .3d 11 01 , 11 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ),

an d ot he r c i r c u i ts ha ve he ld th at in di vi du al s reas on ab ly su sp ect ed of bu rg la ry an d

th eft can be fri sk ed fo r weap on s un de r Ter ry be cau se of th e na tu re of th os e of fen se s.

Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Sn ow , 65 6 F.3d 49 8, 50 1 (7t h Cir. 20 11 ) (“ Bec au se bu rg la ry is

th e t yp e o f of

fen se ‘nor m al ly an d reas on ab ly ex pe ct ed to in vo lv e a weap on ,’

. . .

8 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 8 of 19po li ce do no t req ui re ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n su gg es ti ng th at a su sp ect m ig ht be arm ed

be fo re th ey m ay co nd uc t a pr ot ect iv e fri sk of so m eo ne th ey reas o na bl y su sp ect of

be in g a bu rg la r.”) (qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Bar ne tt , 50 5 F.3d 63 7, 64 0- 41 (7 th Ci r.

20 07 )); Uni te d St at es v. Bul lo ck , 51 0 F.3 d 34 2, 34 7 (D.C. Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ Lik e bu rg la ry ,

car th eft is a cri m e th at of te n in vo lv es th e us e of we a p o n s a nd ot he r in st ru m en ts of

as sa ul t th at co ul d jeop ard iz e po li ce of fic er sa fet y , an d th us jus ti fie s a pr ot ect iv e fri sk

un de r Ter ry to en su re o ffi cer s afet y .”).

W e ne ed no t de ci de to da y whe th er to ad op t su ch a cat eg or ic al Ter ry ru le

. It is

su ffi ci en t to ho ld th at t h e s u s pe ct ed of fen se , to ge th er wit h th e at te nd an t

c irc um st an ces , p ro vi de d a su ffi ci en t ba si s fo r Offi cer Edwar ds to fri sk Mr. Grif f i n

.

“ Great de fere nc e is gi ve n to th e jud gm en t of tra in ed la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers ‘on th e

sc en e[,]’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Ch an th as ou xa t , 34 2 F.3 d 12 71 , 12 76 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ), an d

Offi cer Edwar ds te st ifi ed th at he co nd uc te d th e fri sk to en su re hi s own sa fet y be cau se

he be li ev ed Mr. Grif

fin “ ha d jus t co m

m it te d a cri m in al act ” an d “ was th e in di vi du al
[h e] ne ed ed to m ak e co nt act wit h.” Se e R2 :1 0

. I n o ur vi ew, Offi cer Edwar ds ’ fri sk

was co ns is te nt wit h Ter ry an d it s pr og en y

. Cf

. T e r r y , 3 92 U.S. at 23 (“ Am eri can

cri m in al s ha ve a lo ng tra di ti on of arm ed vi ol en ce, an d ev ery y ear in th is co un try m an y

la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ers are ki ll ed in th e l i n e of du ty, an d th ou sa nd s m or e are

wou nd ed .”).

9

Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 9 of 19C

The di st ric t c o u r t no te d th at th e si m pl e act of po li ce qu es ti on in g do es no t

ge ne ral ly co ns ti tu te a se iz ur e. Bu t it co nc lu de d th at th e e n c o u n t er tu rn ed in to an

un reas on ab le se arch at th e po in t whe n Offi cer Edwar ds “ pr ob e[d ] an d in ve st ig at e[d ]”

ab ou t th e no n- co nt rab an d it em s he fel t in Mr. Grif fin ’s b a ck po ck et . As th e di st ric t

co ur t sa w it , Offi cer Edwar ds ’ qu es ti on s were no t reas on ab ly rel at ed in sc op e to th e

ci rcu m st an ces th at jus ti fie d th e st op in th e fir st pl ace. Offi cer Edwar ds di d no t be li ev e

th at th e ob

jects in th e po ck et were weap on s, an d ev en if he ha d be li ev e d t h a t t he

ob jects were sh ot gu n sh el ls , th e sh el ls were no t, in an d of th ems e l v e s, weap on s,

co nt r a b a n d , or ev id en ce of a cri m e. The qu es ti on s, m or eo ve r, were “ co m pl et el y

un rel at ed to th e on ly su sp ic io ns ” th at Offi cer Edwar ds ha d co nc ern in g Mr. Grif fin at

th e ti m e (i.e ., th at Mr. Grif fin ha d tri ed to st eal so m e it em s of cl ot hi ng a n d / o r was

arm ed ). “ The is su e pr es en te d,” sa id th e di st ric t co ur t, was “ no t t h e s c o p e of th e

de te nt io n, b ut rat he r th e sc op e o f th e se arch .”

Th e d i s t ric t co ur t rel ie d on cas es ho ld in g th at th e sc op e of a Ter ry st op m us t

be reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e reas on s jus ti fy in g th e de te nt io n. Se e, e.g

. , Hii be l v. Si xt h

Ju di ci al Dis t. Co ur t of Nev
., Humb ol dt Cn ty

. , 54 2 U.S. 17 7, 18 5 (2 00 4) (“ To en su re

th at th e res ul ti ng se iz ur e is co ns ti tu ti on al ly reas on ab le , a Ter ry st op m us t be li m it ed

.
The of fic er’s act io n m

us t be jus ti fie d at it s in cep ti on , an d reas on ab ly rel at ed in sc op e

10 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 10 of 19to th e ci rcu m st an ces whi ch jus ti fie d th e in te rfer en ce in th e fir st pl ace.” ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s an d el li ps is om it te d)

. W e do no t ta ke is su e wit h th is ge ne ral

pr in ci pl e, bu t i t d oe s n ot co nt ro l h ere.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s “ ‘hel d rep eat ed ly th at m ere po lic e qu es ti on in g do es no t

co ns ti tu te a se iz ur e.’” Mue hl er v. Men a , 54 4 U.S. 93 , 10 1 (2 00 5) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.
Fo r ex am pl e, in Men a th e Su pr em e Co ur t di d no t fin d an y co ns ti tu ti on al in fir m it y in

an INS of

fic er qu es ti on in g a pe rs on ab ou t he r im m ig rat io n st at us whi l e s h e was

de ta in ed du rin g th e ex ecu ti on of a se arch warr a n t —b y ot he r la w en fo rcem en t

of f i c e r s

— fo r de ad ly weap on s an d ev id en ce of ga ng m em be rs hi p. The Co ur t

ex pl ai ne d th at th e qu es ti on in g di d no t “ co ns ti tu te [ ] a di sc ret e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

ev en t,” an d as lo ng as th e qu eri es di d no t pr ol on g th e de te nt io n, “ th e of fic ers di d no t

ne ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n to as k [th e pe rs on ] fo r he r

. . . im m ig rat io n st at us .” Se e id

.
Fo ur y ea r s aft er Men a , th e Co ur t he ld , in a cas e in vo lv in g a tra ffi c st op , th at “ [a]n

of fic er’s in qu iri es in to m at te rs un rel at ed to th e jus ti fic at io n fo r th e

. . . st op

. . . do no t

co nv ert th e en co un te r in to so m et hi ng ot he r th an a la wfu l se iz u r e , so lo ng as th os e

in qu iri es do no t m eas ur ab ly ex te nd th e du rat io n of th e st op .” Ari zo na v. Jo hn so n , 55 5

U.S. 32 3, 3 33 (20 09 ).

So ho w do cas es li ke Men a an d Jo hn so n affe ct , if at al l, th e “ reas on ab ly rel at ed

11 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 11 of 19in sc op e” pr on g of Ter ry ? Thi s is a m at te r of fir st im pr es si on fo r us , bu t a nu m be r of 2

ou r si st er ci rcu it s ha ve di rect ly co nf ro nt ed th e qu es ti on , an d th ey ha ve al l an swe red

it th e sa m e way

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Dig io va nn i , 65 0 F.3d 49 8, 50 7 (4 th Ci r. 20 11 )
(“Bo t h M

en a an d Jo hn so n m ak e cl ear th at un rel at ed qu es ti on in g du rin g an

in ve st ig at iv e st op

. . . do es no t ru n afo ul of th e sc op e co m po ne nt of Ter ry ’s s eco nd

pr on g.” ); Uni te d St at es v. Ever et t , 60 1 F.3d 48 4, 49 4 n.1 0 (6t h Cir. 20 10 ) (“ [ Men a ]

I n United States v. Purcell , 236 F.3d 1274, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001), decide d befor e Mena 2 and Johnson , we noted that under then-e x is t i n g Fifth Circuit prec edent “the issue reg arding ‘unre lated’ questions conce rns not the content of the questions, but their impact on the duration of the stop[ .]” We also acknow ledg ed t h at t h e T en th Circuit had taken a more restric tive approa ch, holding that unrela

ted questions c ould be asked during a traff ic stop only

if there was independe nt

rea sonable suspicion for them. See id. at 1279. We conclude d that the questions asked by the office r during th e t ra ff

i c s top at issue wer e appropr iate under either approa ch, without ever expressly adopting one over the ot her. See id. at 1280 (“We have c oncluded that, unde r either of these te sts, Deputy Warren’ s question about g uns or drug s was per missibl e.”)

. I n a 2005 case involving a traff ic stop for speeding and questions by the off i ce r ab o u t t h e purpose of the trip, we cited Mena for the proposition that, wher e an office r asks questions unrela ted to the rea son for the stop or office r safe ty , “we are to look only at the duration of the seizure g iven all the circ umstances[.]” United States v. Hernande z , 418 F.3d 1206, 1209 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). But that statement was dicta b ec au s e we conclude d that the office r, from the outset of the stop, had ind ep en dent rea sonable suspicion to ask the driver and passeng er unrela ted questions about the purpose of their t rip. See id. at 1210 (“F rom the first minut e of t he st op, the driver and Defenda nt demonstrated suspicion that could war rant an objectively rea sonab l e p o l iceman to believe that Def endant mig ht be involved in other c riminal activity .”). Two y ear s later, in y et another traff ic stop case , we cited Hernande z for the proposition that “we do not inquire as to the substantive reasonable ness of the questi ons that are asked by a police office r in the context of a traff ic stop, but only whether the duration of the detention was prolong ed for an unrea sonable time.” United S t ates v. Ramirez , 476 F.3d 1231, 1237 n.11 (11th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks omitted). But this statement too was dicta, as we found no need to addre ss the stated principle. See id. (“H ere , beca use we conclude that Ramirez was not ‘deta ined’ at all for purposes of the Four

th Amendment at the time Corporal Martin asked further questions of him, we need not addre ss whether the alleg ed extension of the duration of the traff ic stop was rea sonable or
unrea sonable unde r Hernande z .”).

12 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 12 of 19an d Jo hn so n

. . . st an d fo r th e pr op os it io n th at m ere qu es ti on in g— on an y

su bjec t— can no t vi ol at e th e sc op e pr on g of Ter ry [,]” an d “ [t]he refo re, whe re Ter ry ’s

du rat io n pr on g is no t at is su e

. . . th e su bjec t of th e qu es ti on in g” is irr el ev an t); Uni te d

St at es v. Men de

z , 47 6 F.3 d 10 77 , 10 80 (9 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( Men a ov erru le d cas es ho ld in g

th at un rel at ed qu es t i o n s d u rin g a Ter ry st op m us t be su pp or te d by in de pe nd en t

reas on ab le su sp ic io n) ; Uni te d St at es v. Alca ra z- Arel la no , 44 1 F.3 d 12 52 , 12 58 (1 0t h

Ci r. 20 06 ) (

Men a “ li m it ed ” th e “ reas on ab ly rel at ed in sc op e” pr on g of Ter ry so th at ,

as lo ng as th e un rel at ed qu es ti on in g do es no t ex te nd th e le ng th of th e d e t e n t i o n,

“ th ere is no Fo ur th Am en dm en t is su e wit h res pe ct to th e co nt en t of the qu es ti on s” ).

Se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Ch il ds , 27 7 F.3 d 94 7, 94 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ) ( en ba nc )
(“ qu es ti on s th at do no t in crea se th e le ng th of de te nt io n ( o r t ha t ex te nd it by on ly a

br ie f ti m e) do no t m ak e th e cu s t o dy it se lf un reas on ab le or req ui re su pp res si on of

ev id en ce fo un d as a res ul t of th e an swe rs ”). W e co nc ur wit h th e Fo ur th , Si x th ,
Sev en th , Nin th , an d Ten th Ci rcu it s, an d ho l d

— c on si st en t wit h Men a an d

Jo hn so n —t ha t un rel at ed qu e s t io ns po se d du rin g a va li d Ter ry st op do no t crea te a

Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr o b l em un le ss th ey “ m eas ur ab ly ex te nd th e du rat io n of th e

st op .” Jo hn so n , 55 5 U.S. at 33 3. Thi s is be cau se su ch qu es ti on s, ab se nt a pr ol on ge d

de te nt io n, do no t co ns ti tu te a “ di sc ret e Fo ur th Am en dm en t ev en t.” Men a , 5 44 U.S.

at 10 1.

13

Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 13 of 19Lik e ou r si st er ci rcu it s, we do no t th in k it is ap pr op ria te —g iv en th e la ng ua ge

in Men a an d Jo hn so n —“ to ad op t a b rig ht -li ne ‘ no pro lo ng at io n’ rul e.” Se e Ever et t ,
60 1 F.3 d at 49 2 (ci ti ng cas es in acco rd fro m th e Fi rs t , S e c o n d , Ei gh th , Nin th , an d

Ten th Ci rcu it s)

. The is su e, th eref or e, is whe th er the ti m e it to ok Offi cer Edward s to

as k th e two qu es ti on s, an d fo r Mr. Grif fin to an swe r th em , “ m eas ur ab ly” ex te nd ed or

pr ol on g e d t h e d u rat io n of th e st op so as to m ak e it un reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t. To ad dr es s th is is s u e , we do no t si m pl y lo ok at th e “ in te rv al of

pr ol on ga ti on in is ol at io n,” b u t r a t h e r as se ss th e le ng th of th e st op as a who le ,
in cl ud in g an y ex te ns io n of t he en co un te r, by un de rta ki ng a fact -b ou nd , co nt ex tde pe nd en t an al y si s of al l of th e ci rcu m st an ces co nc ern in g th e st op an d th e un rel at ed

qu es ti on s. Se e Dig io va nn i , 65 0 F .3d at 5 09 ; Ever et t , 60 1 F .3d at 4 93 -9 4.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e an y sp eci fic fin d i n g s a b o u t whe th er Offi cer

Edwar ds ’ qu es ti on in g pr ol on ge d th e st op , m eas ur ab ly or no t, pr ob ab ly be cau se it di d

no t th in k th e cri ti cal is su e was th e sc op e of th e de te nt io n

. Bu t gi ve n th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de sc rip ti on of th e en co un te r, th e br ev it y of th e qu es ti on s an d th e an swe rs , an d

th e fact th at Mr. Grif

fin m ak es no cl ai m of an un co ns ti tu ti on al te m po ral ex te ns io n of

th e st op , we can no t be li ev e th at th e ex ch an ge la st ed m or e th an 30 se co nd s. Bec au se

Offi cer Ed ward s h ad no t yet co m pl et ed hi s in ve st ig at io n in to th e al le ge d a tt em pt ed

th eft , and be cau se he act ed di li ge nt ly, hi s bri ef qu es ti on s d id no t t ran sf or m th e st op

14 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 14 of 19in to an un co ns ti tu ti on al ly p ro lo ng ed se iz ur e. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mas on , 62 8 F.3 d

12 3, 13 1 (4 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q ue st io ns ab ou t tra ve l pl an s, whi ch were un rel at ed to reas on

fo r tra f f ic st op , an d whi ch to ok an ad di ti on al on e to two m in ut es , di d no t

u n r e a s o na bl y le ng th en st op an d th eref or e di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t) ;

Ever et t , 60 1 F.3 d at 49 5- 96 (o ffi cer’s si ng le un rel at e d qu es ti on du rin g tra ffi c st op

ab ou t weap on s an d na rco ti cs , whi ch to ok up se ve ral se co nd s, “ di d no t ren d er th e

tra ffi c st op an un reas on ab le se iz ur e un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t” —ca se “ no t

rem ot el y clo se ”).

D

To th e ex te nt th at it be li ev ed th at Offi cer Edwar ds ’ q u e s t i o n s co ns ti tu te d a

se arch un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t was m is ta ke n. W ha te ve r el se

th ey m ig ht be , qu es ti on s p os ed by a po li ce offi cer to a su sp ect ab ou t what he ha s i n

hi s po ck et an d whe th er he ha s be en to pr is on are no t, in th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t se ns e,

a se arch

. “ In co nt ex t, th es e so rts of qu es ti on s are no t th e ve rb al eq ui va le nt of reac hi ng

in to a su sp ect ’s po ck et s to rem ov e th e co nt en ts , or th e sa m e as or de rin g a su sp ect to

‘em pt y hi s po ck et s’ in th e m id st of a pr ot ect iv e fri sk .” Uni te d St a t e s v

. S t re et , 61 4

F.3 d 22 8, 23 4 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Se e al so Ch il ds , 27 7 F.3 d

at 95 4 (“ Nor do th e qu es ti on s fo rci bl y in v a d e an y pr iv acy in te res t or ex tra ct

in fo rm a ti on wit ho ut th e su sp ect ’s co ns en t.”)

. “ So m et im es a qu es ti on is jus t a

15 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 15 of 19qu es ti on —an d an em in en tl y reas o n a b le qu es ti on at th at

. Tha t is al l th at ha pp en ed

he re.” St re et , 61 4 F .3d at 2 34

.

E

M r

. G r i f f in , rel y in g on Min ne so ta v. Dick er so n , 50 8 U.S. 36 6 (1 99 3) , al s o

arg ue s t he fri sk went be y on d wh at Ter ry pe rm it s. We di sa gr ee.

In Dick er so n , a po li ce of

fic er co nd uc ti ng a fri sk fo r weap on s fel t a lu m p in th e

pe rs on ’s fro nt po ck et

. Alt ho ug h t h e of fic er ha d no t fo un d an y weap on s du rin g th e

fri sk , an d kn ew th e lu m p in th e po ck et was no t a w e a p o n , he sq ue ezed an d

m an ip ul at ed th e lu m

p wit h hi s fin ge rs fro m th e ou ts i d e o f th e po ck et to de te rm in e

wha t it was

. He co nc lu de d th at th e lu m p was co cai ne wrap pe d in cel lo ph an e, an d

reac he d i ns id e th e p oc ke t an d p ul le d ou t a sm al l pl as ti c ba g wi th co cai ne

. Se e id

. at

36 9. The Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha d co rrec tl y

su pp res se d th e co cai ne be cau se th e of fic er wen t be y on d wha t Ter ry al lo ws: “H ere,

th e of fic er’s co nt in ue d ex pl or at io n of [th e] po ck et aft er ha vi ng c o n c l u d e d th at it

co nt ai ne d no weap on was un r e la te d to ‘[t]he so le jus ti fic at io n of th e se arch [u nd er

Ter ry :]

. . . th e pr ot ect io n of th e po l ic e of fic e an d ot he rs ne arb y .’ It th eref or e

am ou nt ed to th e so rt of ev id en ti ary se arch th at Te r r y e x p r e ss ly refu se d to

au th or iz e[.]” Id

. at 37 8 (a lt erat io ns in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g Ter ry , 39 2 U.S. at 29 ).

16 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 16 of 19Offi cer Edwar ds te st ifi ed at th e su pp res si on he ari ng th at , du rin g th e pa t-d own ,

he “ r[a]n [h is ] ha nd acro ss ” Mr. Grif fin ’s b ack le ft po ck et an d fel t wha t he th ou gh t

were C-ce ll ba tt eri es

. Se e R2 :1 0, 29 -3 1. W he n he was a sk ed di rect ly if he “ ki nd of

kn eed [s ic ] th e po ck et , tr yi n g t o f i gu re ou t wha t was in si de ,” Offi cer Edwar ds

an swe red no

. Se e R2 :3 3. And th e di st ric t cou rt fou nd th at Offi cer Edward s “ di d no t

reac h in to th e

. . . po ck et to ex am in e th e ob jects cl os er, bu t rat he r as ke d [Mr

. Grif fin ]
why he was carr y in g b at te rie s.”

On t he reco rd be fo re us , M r. Grif fin ha s no t m ad e ou t a Dick er so n vi ol at io n.

A fri sk ne ces sa r il y en ta il s th e of fic er’s us e of hi s ha nd s to feel fo r weap on s, an d

no th in g th at Offi cer Edwar ds di d ph y si cal ly vi ol at ed M r

. Grif fin ’s Fo ur th

Am en dm en t rig ht s. Se e Dick er so n , 50 8 U.S. at 37 5 (“ If a po li ce of fic er la wfu ll y pa ts

do wn a su sp ect ’s ou te r cl ot hi ng an d feel s an ob ject who se co nt ou r or m as s m ak e it s

id en ti t y i mm ed ia te ly ap pa ren t, th ere ha s be en no in va si on of th e su sp ect ’s pr iv acy

be y on d t ha t al read y

au th or iz ed by the off

ic er’s s earc h fo r weap on s[ .] ”).

Mr. Grif fin ’s real ob

jecti on , we th in k, is to th e qu es ti on s th at Offi cer Edwar ds

as ke d du rin g th e fri sk

. Bu t th os e qu es ti on s , a s e x p l a i ne d ab ov e, di d no t tra ns gr es s

th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Co nt rary to Mr. Grif fin ’s arg um en t, Dick

er so n do e s n o t

pr ecl ud e an of

fic er fro m as ki ng ab ou t ob jects whi ch he kn ows are no t weap on s. Se e,

e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Rive rs , 12 1 F.3 d 10 43 , 10 46 -4 7 (7 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (o ffi cer di d no t

17 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 17 of 19vi ol at e Dick er so n by “ li ng er[i ng ] no t m or e th an on e to two se c on ds ” on lu m p in

po ck et , an d th en ta pp in g lu m p “ ag ai n a few ti m es ” whe n as ki ng pe rs on wha t th e lu m p

was ). The cas es Mr. Grif fin ci te s i n su pp or t of hi s arg um en t, m or eo ve r, are

di st in gu is ha bl e o r no t p ers ua si ve

.
In Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Pere

z , 40 8 Fed

. App ’x 19 8, 20 0- 02 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 11 ), th e

Ten th Ci rcu it affi rm ed a su pp res si on or de r be cau se th e of fic er, aft er co m

pl et in g hi s

fri sk fo r weap on s, co nt in ue d to pa t th e de fen da nt ’s rig ht rear po ck et , sl id hi s ha nd in

t h a t area to try to id en ti fy an ob ject he fel t, an d th en as ke d th e de fen da nt wha t t h e

ob ject was

. Tha t fact ua l sc en ari o is no t pr es en t he re. Offi cer Edwar ds di d no t co nd uc t

a se co nd fri sk aft er co m

pl et in g th e fir st , an d he di d no t im pr op erl y m an ip ul at e Mr.

Grif fin ’s bac k l eft po ck et

.
The di st ric t co ur t in Uni te d St at es v. Lemo ns , 15 3 F.Su pp .2d 94 8, 95 8- 59 (E.D.

W is c. 20 01 ), di d ho ld th at a po li ce of fic er “ co m

m it te d a Dick

er so n vi ol at io n whe n he

qu es ti on ed [th e su sp ect ] ab ou t th e it em s in [h is ] po ck et .” Lemo ns do es no t swa y us ,
ho wev er, be cau se it rel ie d on a Sev en th Ci rcu it pa ne l op in io n th at was la te r reject ed
by th e Sev en th Ci rcu it si tt in g en ba nc , se e Ch il ds , 27 7 F.3 d at 94 9 (rejec ti ng vi ew of

th e pa ne l in Uni te d St at es v. Ch il ds , 25 6 F.3 d 55 9, 56 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 )), an d be cau se

it was d eci de d b efo re Men a an d Jo hn so n

.
II I

18 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 18 of 19The di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng Mr. Grif fin ’s m ot io n to su pp res s is rev ers ed ,

an d t he cas e is rem an de d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.
R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D .

19 Case: 11-15558 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 19 of 19