T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has ** det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a s e is th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. 

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

### A p ril9,2007 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. 06- 5163 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) CH RI STOPHER M I CH AEL HE L T ON, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR- 4 5 - HDC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HENR Y , S EY M OUR , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es. **
In M a y2 0 0 6 , C h risto p h e r M ich a e l H e lto n p lea d e d g u iltyto b e in g a fe lo n in pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm and amm uni t i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) and 924( a) . M r . H el t on ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementaft ert he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed h i s mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e t h a ts e r v e d a s t h e b a s i s o f t h i s c o n v i c t i o n . HeM s. S p ieg e l is a lso so m e tim e s re fe rre d to a s M s. L isa B a tt, w h ich is 1 a p p a r e n t l ya n a l i a s . W e a l s o n o t e t h a tt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts p e l l s M s . S p i e g e l ’ s n a me w ith an “a ” b u t th e g o v ern m en t and M r. H elt o n sp ell itw ith an “e ” (S p iege l) . It is n o t c le a r w h ic h is c o rr e c t. 2 r es erved the r i ghtt o r ai s e thi s appea l . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 , a n d a ffir m . I . BA CKGROUND A . F AC TS T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th e fo llo w in g w ith re g a rd to M r. H e lto n ’s a rre st: T he D i s t r i ctC our t o f T u lsa C ountyi s s ued a fel onyarr es tw arr antfor L isa S p iega l. O n Jan u ary 9 , 2 0 0 6 , D u an e G u thri e, a b ail b o n d rec o v ery 1 agent , cont act ed T ul s a Pol i ce O ffi cerM ark K ennedyand r el at ed that G ut hr i e had s een M s . Spi egal exi ta dar k For d t ruck and e nt erthe r es i den ce at 23 N or t h L oui s vi l l e A venue i n T ul s a. K ennedyknew G u thr i e, had r el i ed on i nform at i on G uthr i e gave hi m i n the pas t , and h a d n e v e r k n o w n G u th ri e to g iv e u n re lia b le in fo rm a tio n . K e n n e d y , a m e m b e r o f

th e N o rth e rn O k la h o m a F u g iti v e T a sk F o rc e , h a d a file in hi s vehi cl e thatcont ai ned Spi egal ’ s pi ctur e, des cr i pt i ve i nformat i on, a n d a c o p yo f h e r o u ts ta n d in g w a rra n t. . . . A t th e sc e n e , G u th rie i dent i fi ed a da r k For d t ruck w i th t i nt ed w i ndow s i n the dri vew ay of the r es i d e n c e a s t h e s a me t ru c k f r o m w h i c h Sp i e g a l e x i t e d . Kennedy s ur vei l l ed the r es i dence w i th bi nocul ar s . K ennedys aw a w om an w hom h e b eli ev ed to b e S p iega l si tt ing o n the p asse n g er side o f the d ark F o rd tru c k w ith tin te d w in d o w s . D efe ndantH el t on exi t ed the r es i dence , ent er ed the dark For d truck, and dr ove aw ayw i t h t he w om an. O ffi cer K ennedyfol l ow ed the truck i n an unm arked vehi cl e and a r ound the 800 bl ock of N or th L oui s vi l l e turned on his em ergencyequ i pm ent. H el t on did not i m m ediat el yst op , so K ennedybr i efl yturn ed o n hi s vehi cl e’ s s i r en. H el t on turned i nt o the d ri v ew ayo f

8 0 2 N o rth L o u isvil le, ex it ed the truc k , an d w alke d tow ard t he r es i dence . K en nedyexi t ed hi s vehi cl e, obs erved thatH el t on appea r ed nervous , and as ked H el t on t o r ais e hi s hands . H el t on di d not c o m p lya n d c o n tin u e d w a lk in g to w a rd th e re sid e n c e , h is r ig h t h a n d in3

hi s po c k e t . Ken n e d y a g a i n a s k e d Hel t o n t o r a i s e h i s h a n d s . H el t on cont i nued t o w al k aw ayw i th hi s l efthand r ai s ed. U s i ng hi s r i ghthand, H el ton rem o v ed a . 32 cal i berhandgun and a gl as s s m oki ng pi pe fr om h is w ai stban d and threw bo th i nto a bu sh. H el t on then rai sed b o th h a n d s a n d a t K e n n e d y ’s c o m m a n d la id o n th e g ro u n d . A ft er arr es t i ng H el t on, K ennedydet erm i ned thatthe truck’ s pas s enger w as notL is a S p ie g a l. . . . D ist . C t. O rde r at 1-2 (em p h asis su p p li ed ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). B . D I ST R I C T C OU R T D EC I SI ON AN D I SS UES ON A PP EAL T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatboth the i ni t i al t r aff i c s t op and the d eten ti o n o f M r. H elt o n w ere rea so n ab le un d er the F o u rth A m en d m en t. T h e c o u rt obs erved thatM r . G ut hr i e w as a pr oven and r el i abl e i nform antand thatO ffi cer K ennedym ade e veryeffor tt o m ake a n acc ur at e i dent i fi cat i on. T hus , undert he t otal i t yof the ci rcum st ances O ffi cer K enn edy ’s rel i ance o n the w arr ant for M s. Spi egel ’ s arr es tw as bot h obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e and i n good fai th. T her efor e, t he fac tt hathe w as ul t i m at el ym i s t aken a boutt he pas s enger ’ s i dent i tydi d not i nval i dat e the s t op. T h e d istric t co u rt a lso fo u n d th a t M r. H e lto n w a s s u bjec t to tw o se p a ra te s ei zur es . T he fi r s tw as t he tr aff i c s t op. H ow ever , t he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded t hatt he i ni t i al s ei zur e t erm i nat ed “[ w ] hen [M r . ] H el t on i gnor ed O ffi cerK ennedy an d w alke d aw ay . ” Id . at 3. A cc o rdin g to the d istri ct co u rt , the s ec o n d seizu re o c c u rre d w h e n M r. H e lto n w a s p lac e d u n d e r a rre st a f ter O ffice r K e n n e d ysa w h im fl i ng a pi s t ol and a gl as s s m oki ng devi ce i nt o the bus hes , t her ebycr eat i ng4

pr obabl e ca us e. A l t ernat i vel y , t he courtfound that , even i f the ent i r e i nt er act i on c o n stitu ted a se izu re , “[ c ]o n sid e ra tio n s o f o ffice r sa fe ty ” re n d e re d it rea so n a b le
u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. I d . a t 4 . M r. H e lto n re se rv e d th e rig h t to a p p e a l (1 ) w h e th e r th e in iti a l sto p o f h is
v e h icle w a s s u p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le s u sp icio n ; an d (2 ) w h e th e r h e c o n tin u e d to be s ei zed unde rt he Four t h A m endmentaft erhe bega n t o w al k aw ayfr om the s c e n e o f th e s to p . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . S T A N D A RD OF R EVI EW “W hen r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , acc eptt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunl es s cl ear l yerr oneous , and r evi ew de novo the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of
r eas onabl enes s undert he Four t h A m endment . ” U ni t ed St at es v. K at oa, 379 F. 3d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). B . T HE T RAF F I C S TOP T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro v id e s: “ T h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in t hei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and effec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and se izu re s, sh a ll n o t b e v io late d , an d n o W a rra n ts s h a ll i ss u e , b u t u p o n p ro b a b le c a u se , su p p o rte d b yo a th a n d a ffirm a tio n , an d p a rticu lar lyd e sc rib in g th e p lac e to b e se a rc h e d , an d th e p e rso n s o r th in g s to b e se ize d .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . IV . B eca us e i ti s a s ei zur e fort he purpos es of the Four th A m endment , a tr aff i c s t op5

m u s t b e re a s o n a b le . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a v e rn a , 3 4 8 F .3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I n or dert o as s es s t he r eas onabl enes s of a tr aff i c s t op, w e l ook t o the pr i nci pl es governi ng i nves t i gat i ve det ent i ons . U ni t ed St at es v. G uerr er o- E s pi noza, 462 F. 3d 1302, 1307 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T hi s cour texami nes the r eas onabl enes s of i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on undert ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s fr om the per s pect i ve of a r eas onabl e off

i cer . U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui nt ana- G ar ci a, 343 F. 3d 1266, 1270 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I ti s i m por t antt o not e thatthe mer e fa ctthatM r . H el t on’ s pas s engerw as n o t th e in d iv id u a l n a m e d in th e w a rr a n t d o e s n o t r e n d e r t h e in itia l s to p in v a lid . H i l l v. C al i forni a, 40 1 U . S . 79 7, 80 4 (197 1) ( up ho l ding t he v al i dityof an arr est bas ed on a mi s i dent i fi cat i on of the i ndi vi dual i n the w arr antbeca us e “[ s ] uffi ci ent p ro b a b ili ty , n o t ce rta in ty , is th e to u c h sto n e o f re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t an d o n th e re c o rd b e fo re u s th e o ffice rs’ m ista k e w a s u n d e rsta n d a b le a n d th e a rr e s t a re a s o n a b le re s p o n s e to th e s itu a tio n fa c in g th e m a t th e tim e .” ). I ns t ead, t he s t op w as val i d i f O ffi cerK ennedyr eas onabl yr el i ed on thatw arr ant u n d e r t h e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . M r. H e lto n c o n ten d s th a t O ffice r K e n n e d yd id n o t h a v e re a so n a b le su sp icio n to m a k e th e in iti a l traffic s to p , in p a rt, b e c a u se h e c o u ld n o t sa yw ith cert ai nt yt hatM s . Spi egel w as nots t i l l i n the hous e. I n addi t i on, M r . H el t on emphasi zes t hatM s . Spi egel ’ s D epart m entof C orr ect i ons phot os cont ai n an ethni c des cr i pt i on cl as s i fy i ng M s . Spi egel as N at i ve A m er i can, and the pas s enger6

i n M r . H el t on’ s carw as cauc as i an. H e al s o m akes m uch of the fa ctthatO ffi cer K e n n e d yu s e d b in o c u la rs to o b s e rv e th e p a s s e n g e r o f M r. H e lto n ’s c a r. D es pi t e M r . H el t on’ s cont ent i ons , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch c o n c lu d e d , a r el i able and di s i nt er es t ed s our ce[ ] i nform ed O ffi cerK ennedythathe coul d fi nd L i s a Spi egal , a per s on w ant ed on an out s t andi n g fel ony w a rra n t, at a p a rticu lar lo c a tio n a n d th a t sh e h a d b e e n th e p a ss e n g e r in a part i cul arvehi cl e. O ffi cerK ennedy , equi pped w it h bi nocul ar s , an arr estw arr ant, a ph otograph, and the ident i fy i ng charact eri st i cs of L i sa Spi egal , bel i eved i n good fai th thatthe pas s engerof the vehi cl e w as L isa S p ieg a l. D i s t . C t . O r derat4. I n s hor t , O ffi cerK ennedy ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of the pas s enger as M s. S piegel and his decis i on t o st op the v ehicl e on the b asi s of t he arr est w a rr a n t w e re re a s o n a b le . M r. H elt o n ’s arg u m en t th at O fficer K en n ed y ’s us e o f b ino cu lars underm i nes t he r eas onabi l i t yof hi s r el i ance on the w arr anti s unper s uas i ve. T he i m pli cat i on of M r. H el t on ’s con t enti on i s that i f t he o ffi cer had to use bi no cular s, t hen he w as notcl os e enough t o the s us pect . H ow ever , ther e w as no t es t i m ony that O fficer K en n ed yw as u n ab le t o see the s u sp ec t w ith o u t bino cu lars; rathe r, O ffic e r K e n n e d yu s e d b in o c u la rs to g e t a c lo s e r l o o k a n d v e ri f yth e tip . M r. H e lto n ’s c o n ten tio n s a b o u t M s. S p ieg e l’s e th n icitya re sim ilarly unavai l i ng. T he mer e fa ctt hatM s . Spi egel ’ s depart m entof corr ect i ons document s i dent i fyheras N at i ve A m er i can doe s notm ean thati tw as unr eas onabl e forO ffi cerK ennedyt o concl ude s he l ooked ca ucas i an. W hi l e the7

sta te m a yfe e l th e n e e d to c las sif yp e o p le in to o n e e th n icitya n o th e r, th e re a lityis t hatethni c i dent i t yand appe ar ance fr equent l ydefyr i gi d cat egor i zat i on. M any p e o p le w h o id e n tifyth e m se lv e s a s A m e ric a n In d ian m a yn o t ap p e a r to b e f u llb lo o d . In fa c t, O ffice r K e n n e d y ’s e x p e rie n c e b e a rs o u t th e tru th o f th is obs ervat i on: he t es t i fi ed att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng thathi s w i fe i s hal f N at i ve A m e ric a n , b u t th a t sh e a p p e a rs c a u c a sia n . F u rth e rm o re , itis im p o rta n t to n o te t hatw hetherM s . Spi egel ’ s w arr antpi ctur e and de s cr i pt i on s uffi ci ent l ym at ched t he pas s engerar e ques t i ons of fa ctthatthi s courts houl d notover turn abs entcl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t o t he contr ary . M r . H el t on has pr es ent ed no evi dence th a t w o u ld a llo w u s to d is tu rb th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s fin d in g . Fi nal l y , M r . H el t on’ s obs ervat i on thatM r . G uthr i e neve ri nform ed O ffi cer K ennedyt hatM s . Spi egel w as l eavi ng the hous e i s fr i vol ous . N othi ng i ndi cat es t hatt he i nform antw as i n a pos i t i on t o r el ays uch i nform at i on; nordoes the a b se n c e o f

th is a ffirm a tiv e d e c lar a tio n o n M r. G u th rie ’s p a rt g iv e u s g ro u n d s to over tur n t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatO ffi cerK ennedyr eas onabl ybel i eved th a t th e w o m a n in M r. H e lto n ’s v e h ic le w a s M s . S p ie g e l. C . S E IZUR E OF M R . H EL TON F OL L OW ING TH E T RAF F I C S TOP T he governm entdoes notquarr el w i th M r . H el t on’ s cont ent i on thathe w as s e iz e d w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t a f te r h e e x ite d th e v e h ic le . In ste a d , the g o v e rn m e n t m a in tain s th a t O ffice r K e n n e d y ’s r e a so n a b le s a fe ty conce r ns j us t i fi ed the s ei zur e. A cce pt i ng the governm ent ’ s conce s s i on fort he8

purpos es of thi s or der , w e foc us onl yon w hetheri tw as r eas onabl e forO ffi cer K e n n e d yto o rd e r M r. H e lto n to re m a in in th e v e h icle a n d , o n c e h e e x ited , to o rd e r h im to s to p w a lk in g a w a ya n d p u t h is h a n d s in th e a ir . T he es s ence of the off i cers afe tyi nqui ryi s w hetherthe off i cer ’ s act i ons w er e r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the pot ent i al thr eat . U ni t ed St at es v. M el endez
G arc ia, 2 8 F . 3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e e v alua te O fficer K en n ed y ’s comm and t o M r . H el t on i n l i ghtof the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 271 F. 3d 1262, 1268 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( “[W ] hetheran i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on i s s uppor t ed byan obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e s us pi ci on of ille g a l a c tiv ity tu rn s o n o u r r e v ie w o f th e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” ). I n t hi s cas e, t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s i ncl uded a tr aff i c s t op on t he bas i s of an a r r es tw arr antforfel onydrug char ges and M r . H el t on’ s unus ual deci s i on t o w al k aw ayfr om O ffi cerK ennedyw i th hi s r i ghthand conc eal ed. T he Supr eme C our thas obs erved thatan off i cerfac es “i nor di nat e r i s k . . . as he a pp r oa c he s a pe r s on s e a t e d i n a n a ut omobi l e . ” Pe nn s y l va ni a v. M i mm s , 43 4 U. S. 106, 110 ( 1977) . “I ndeed, i tappea r s thata s i gni fi cantper cent age of m ur der s of pol i ce offi cer s occur s w hen the off i cer s ar e maki ng tr aff i c s t ops . ” I d. ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). M o re o v e r, in e x e c u tin g a n a rre st b a se d o n p ro b a b le c a u se , o ffice rs m a ytem p o ra rilyd e tain a b y sta n d e r if h is o r h e r re latio n sh ip w ith t he arr es t ee i s uncl earand i f r eas onabl e conc erns foroffi cers afe tyj us t i fydoi ng s o . T h o m p s o n v . C ity o f L a w re n c e , 5 8 F .3 d 1 5 1 1 , 1 5 1 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ).9

T aki ng i nt o acc ountt he t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , w e agr ee w i th the di s t r i ctcourtt hat itw as r eas onabl e forO ffi cerK ennedyt o or derH el t on t o r eturn t o the t ruck once H el t o n ex i t ed. H el t on appea r ed nervous and hi s r i ghthand w as o b scu r ed fr om O ffi cerK ennedy ’ s vi ew . H el t on’ s act i ons cr eat ed an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e appr ehens i on foran off i cer ’ s s afe tydur i ng a tra ffic s to p a n d th e re fo re a n o rd e r to re tu rn to th e c a r w a s re a so n a b le u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. D i s t . C t . O r derat4. N ot w i t hs t andi ng M r . H el t on’ s att or ney ’ s per s onal guar ant ee th a t M r. H e lto n w a s m e re lyd isp o sin g o f h is fire a rm in th e b u sh e s, it w a s c lea rly
r eas onabl e forO ffi cerK ennedyt o bel i eve thatM r . H el t on’ s t empora rydet ent i on w a s n e c e s s a ry to e n s u re h is o w n s a fe ty. I I I . CO NC L US I ON A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of M r . H el t on’ s m ot i on t o sup press . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge