T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T h e H o n o r ab le B e ttyB in n s F le tc h e r , S e n io rC ir c u it J u d g e f o rth e N in th ** C i r c ui tC ourtof

A ppe a l s , f

ul l y pa rt i c i pa t e d i n the c a s e a nd c onc urr e d i n the j udgm e ntpr i ort o he rde a th. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. ZUBE RI SE EL ST EE L, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 10038 D . C . N o. 4: 11 -C R -001 49 -P JH -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hy l l i s J . H a m i l t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r16, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , D . W . N E L S O N , an d M U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. ** Z ub er i S ee l S t ee l appeal s the deni al of a m ot i on t o sup pres s e vi dence of a fi re arm he w as char ged w i th p osse ss i ng . T hi s C ou rtre vi ew s de nov o a di stri ct 

# FI LED NO V 08 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

court ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o sup pres s, and revi ew s the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual f in d in g s u n d e r ly in g th e d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n f

o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. Sh etler , 665 F . 3d 1150, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin f in d in g th a t r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n e x is te d to w arranta T

erryst op . A po l i ce offi ce r m aycond uctan i nv es t i gat ory s t op , or T erry s to p , to p r e v e n t o n g o in g o rim m in e n t c r im e . T e rr yv . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 , 3 0 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . H e r e , O f f ic e rS a n c h e z “o b s e rv e [ d ] u n u s u a l c o n d u c t w h ic h [ le d ] h im r e a s o n ab lyto c onc l ude i n l i ghtof

hi s e xpe r i e nc e tha tc r i m i na l a c t i vi tym a y[ ha ve ] be [ e n] af oo t. . . . ” I

d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o c o rr e c tlyd e te rm in e d th a t S te e l’s d e te n tio n w a s av a lid i nv es t i gat ory s t op un der T erry , n o t a n u n la w f

u l a rr e s t. W h eth er an u n l aw fu l arrest occurs depend s on w hether the use of f orce i n d et ai ni ng the suspec tw as j ust i fi ed unde rthe t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , w e i ghi ng the i ntrus i ve ne s s of the s t op a g a in s t th e ju s tif

ic a tio n f o ru s in g s u c h ta c tic s . U ni ted Stat es v. Mi les , 247 F . 3d 1009, 1012 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . I n appl y i ng thi s t e s t , the c ourtc ons i de r s “ the ag g re ss iv en es s o f th e m eth o d s u se d b y p o li ce an d th e d eg re e to w h ich th e s u sp ec t’ s lib e rtyw a s r e s tr ic te d ,” a n d “w h e th e rth e o f f ic e rh a d s u f

f ic ie n t b a s is to f

e a rf o rh is or her s af

ety w arrant i ng a m ore i ntrusi ve ac t i on . ” U ni te d State s v . R ous s e au , 2573

F . 3d 925, 929 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . H e r e , S a nc he z ’ s us e of f or c e i n s t oppi ng S t e e l a nd hand cuff i ng hi m w as j ust i fi ed gi ven S anchez’ s r ea sonabl e s af ety c on ce rns. S t ee l d id n o t c o o p e r a te w ith S a n c h e z ’s r e p e a te d c o m m a n d s to s to p , d id n o t c o m p lyw ith S a n c h e z ’s o r d e rto p u t h is h a n d s b e h in d h is b a c k , a n d m a d e am o v e m e n t w ith h is ri gh telbo w t ow ar ds hi s r i gh tsi de — a ges ture w hi ch m ade S anchez c on ce rned that S te e l w a s e ith e rc a rry in g af ir e a rm o ra tte m p tin g to d is c a r d c o n tr ab a n d . A FFI R M ED .