NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 2225

_____________ U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

v. DA W AN RA SHEED M c BRI DE, A p p e l l a n t O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 2- 08- cr - 00308- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 12, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 14, 2010)

OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR T A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. D aw an R as heed M cB r i de appe al s fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s a fi r earm s ei zed a ft eranT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 1 juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 i nves t i gat orys t op, s ee Terr yv. O hi o, 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) , as w el l as the i m pos i t i on of a m a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e a s a n a rm e d c a re e r c rim in a l f o llo w in g h is p lea o f

g u iltyto the cha r ge of f

el on- i n- pos s es s i on. M cB r i de ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n us i ng the re aso n ab le su sp ici o n stan d ard an d sh o u ld h av e ins tead req u ir ed the a rresti n g o ff icers t o demonstr at e pr obabl e ca us e forthe s t op. H e addi t i onal l yar gues thathi s fi ft een- y ear m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence i s unj us tand cons t i tut es cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent beca us e hi s pr i ordrug convi ct i ons w er e mi norand s houl d notbe cons i der ed s er i ous drug o ff en ses f o r pu rpo ses o f th e A rm ed C are er C ri m inal A ct (“A C C A ”), 18 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (e). T he G overnm ents ubm i t s thatthe appe l l at e w ai veri ncorpor at ed i n M cB r i de’ s pl ea agr eementpr ecl udes us fr om exer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew M cB r i de’ s s ent ence and anytheor i es of s uppr es s i on notpr es erved i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . W e conc l ude thatt he Di s tr i c tCo u r td i d n o te r r , a n d we wi l l a f f i r m f o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w. 1 I. B eca us e the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs i n the D i s tr i ct C o u rt , w e w ill r e c ite th e m o n ly as n e c e s s a ry to th e d is c u s s io n . T he fol l ow i ng ci r cumst ance s ar e el i ci t ed fr om t es t i m onypr ovi ded dur i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s uppr es s i on hear i ng. O n J anuary30, 2007, Pi t t s bur gh Pol i ce D et ect i ve W ill Je f f rie s, a n e x p e rie n c e d n a rc o tics o f f ice r, w a s p e rf

o rm in g su rv e ill a n c e in3

p lain c lo th e s o u tsid e o f

T im ’s B a r a t th e c o rn e r o f P e rryS tre e t an d W y lie A v e n u e in Pi t t s bur gh, an ar ea know n fordrug act i vi ty . O ffi cerJ eff r i es t es t i fi ed thathe obs erved M c B rid e a n d a w o m a n , M s. T e rry , lea v e th e b a r a n d th a t, [a] s theyw al ked on the s i dew al k, goi ng back t ow ar ds the Q 45, the bl ack vehi cl e, I obs erved thatthe pas s enger , M r . M cB r i de, knocki ng a ci garbl unt out , w hatw e ca l l a bl unt , w hi ch y ou r ol l m ar i j uana i n and y ou s m oke i tout o f. K n o c k in g th e re m a in s o u t o n th e sid e w a lk . . . . T h e lig h ts c o m e o n . I p u ll up m ybi nocul ar s . I coul d s ee them, the pas s enger , M r . M cB r i de, r ol l i ng a m a riju a n a b lu n t. ( A p p . 6 0 - 6 1 . ) H e s u b s e q u e n t l y r a d i o e d a m a r k e d u n i tt o r e s p o n d t o th e n a r c o t i c s a c t i v i ty. A thr ee- per s on uni t , i ncl udi ng O ffi cerB obbs , r es ponded. T he vehi cl e w as s t opped a f ew bl ocks fr om T i m ’ s B ar ; no tr aff i c vi ol at i ons w er e obs erved. O ffi cerB obbs appr oache d th e p a s s e n g e rs i d e , i l l u mi n a t i n g th e i n t e r i o rwi th a f l a s h l i g h t . He t e s t i f

i e d th a th e s a w a m ar i j uana bl unti n t he ce nt ercons ol e ar ea, r eques t ed thatM cB r i de l eave the vehi cl e, p la c e d h im u n d e r a rr e s t, a n d b e g a n to s e a rc h h im . W h e n O f f ic e r B o b b s f

e lt a f ir e a rm , a phy s i cal s truggl e ens ued. U l t i m at el y , O ffi cerB obbs s ubdued M cB r i de and s ei zed the f i r e a r m. T her e ar e s ever al di s cr epanc i es betw een the t es t i m onyof the off i cer s and thatof the def endantand dr i ver , T err y . M cB r i de t es t i fi ed and a r gues bybr i ef thatT errydi d not l eave the vehi cl e and w as noti ns i de the bar . O ffi cerJ eff r i es t es t i fi ed thatboth T erryand M c B rid e lef

t th e b a r a n d e n ter e d th e v e h icle . T h e re w a s c o n f lictin g tes tim o n ya s to w hetherM cB r i de s t at ed thathe w as “j us tgoi ng t o s m oke the bl unt ” pr i ort o or su b se q u e n t to th e a rre st. (A p p . 1 0 5 .) M c B rid e p ro tes ts th a t, alth o u g h h e d id ro ll a b lu n t,4

he di d s o i ns i de the barand thathe w as ki s s i ng T erryand s ear chi ng fora C D w hi l e i ns i de the vehi cl e and unde rpol i ce s ur vei l l ance . T errys i m i l ar l yt es t i fi ed thatal though the bl unt w as i n hercar , i thad bee n as s embl ed bef or e M cB r i de ent er ed the vehi cl e. M cB r i de w as i ndi ct ed on A ugus t13, 2008, forone countof pos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . O n O ct ober24, 2008, h e f il ed a m o ti o n to su p p ress the firearm seize d d u ri n g h is arrest. T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mot i on atthe conc l us i on of a he ar i ng on J anuary8, 2009. O n February3, 20 09 , M cB ri de en t ered a plea agreem ent, w ai ving cert ai n ap pell at e and coll at eral ri gh t s, butpr es ervi ng the r i ghtt o appea l the deni al of the mot i on t o s uppr es s as w el l as l i m i t ed s ent enci ng i s s ues . A ts ent enci ng on A pr i l 21, 2009, the C our tdet erm i ned thatM cB r i de w as a n A rm ed C are er C ri m inal (“A C C ”) p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) an d 9 2 4 (e), and sent enced him t o the st atutorym and at orym i nim um t erm of f i ft een y ears ’ im p ri so n m en t fo ll o w ed b yfiv e y ea rs of su p erv ised release . S ee U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 (c). M cB r i de fi l ed a t i m el yN ot i ce of A ppeal on A pr i l 23, 2009. M cB r i de’ s w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementcont ai ned a br oad appe l l at e w ai ver . H e r es erved the r i ghtt o t ake a di r ectappea l fr om the s ent ence onl yi f ( 1) the governm entt akes a di r ect a p p e a l o f th e se n ten c e im p o se d , (2 ) “ th e se n ten c e e x c e e d s th e a p p lica b le s tatu to rylim its s etfor th i n t he U ni t ed St at es C ode, ” or( 3) “the s ent ence unr eas onabl yexce eds the gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned bythe C our tunderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ” ( A pp. 127- 1 2 8 . ) M cB ri d e a lso rese rve d the righ t t o ap p ea l th e issu e o f “ [w ]he ther the d istri ct co u rt5

e rr e d in f a ilin g to s u p p re s s th e e v id e n c e s e iz e d f ro m M c B ri d e .” (A p p . 1 2 7 -1 2 8 .) II. B e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t h a s in v o k e d th e a p p e llate -w a iv e r p ro v isio n c o n tain e d in M cB r i de’ s pl ea a gr eement , w e mustdet erm i ne as a thr es hol d m att erw hetherthe w ai ver pr event s us fr om exer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the mer i t s of s om e oral l of M c B rid e ’s a p p e a l. U n ited S tate s v . C o rso , 5 4 9 F .3 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e n o te in iti a llyth a t M c B rid e d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e v a lid ityo f th e a p p e llate w a iv e r c o n tain e d in hi s pl ea a gr eementand, ourr evi ew of the r ecor d s at i s fi es us thati tw as know i ng and vol unt ary . T hus , w e w i l l decl i ne t o exer ci s e ourj ur i s di ct i on on the mer i t s of ea ch argum ent i f w e con cl ud e t he is sue fall s w i thin the scop e of the app el l at e w ai ver unless enfor ci ng the w ai verw oul d w or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. U ni t ed St at es v. G oods on, 544 F . 3 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III . B eca us e the s ent ence does notexce ed the s t atut oryl i m i torthe gui del i ne r ange, M c B rid e ’s a p p e a l o f

h is s e n ten c e is c lea rlyp re c lu d e d b yth e ter m s o f th e a p p e llate w ai ver . W e mayther efor e r evi ew hi s s ent ence onl yi f enf or cementof hi s appel l at e w ai ver w ith re sp e c t to th e se n ten c in g a p p e a l w ill w o rk a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . M c B rid e f

a iled to b r i e f th e m i s c a r r i a g e - o f

- j u s t i c e e x c e p t i o n a n d i n s t e a d a t t a c k e d h i s s e n t e n c e d i r e c t l y, ar gui ng thati tvi ol at es the Ei ghth A m endment . A ccor di ng t o M cB r i de, the convi ct i onsT he thr ee c onvi ct i ons tr i gger i ng hi s A C C des i gnat i on w er e: ( 1) del i veryand 2 pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i vercr ack- coca i ne, $20 w or th ( PSR ¶ 33) ; ( 2) del i veryand pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i vercr ack- coca i ne, $10 w or th ( PSR ¶ 34) ; and ( 3) pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i vercr ack- coca i ne ( PSR ¶ 30) . T he court s i n al l thr ee i ns t ance s s e n te n c e d M c B ri d e to le s s th a n tw o y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. ( P S R ¶ ¶ 3 0 , 3 3 , 3 4 .) U nderthe A C C A , convi ct i ons qual i fyan off enderforA C C s t atus bas ed on the 3 m a x im u m ter m p re sc rib e d b yth e sta tu te u n d e r w h ich th e o f f e n d e r w a s p re v io u sly s ent ence d. See 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 2) ( i i ) ( defi ni ng a “s er i ous drug offe ns e” a s a drug offe ns e unders t at e l aw w i th a maxi m um t erm of atl eas tt en y ear s ) . T hus , a cr i m i nal r ecor d i n one s t at e maygi ve r i s e t o an A C C des i gnat i on w her eas the i dent i cal cr i m i nal r ecor d i n a di ffe r ents t at e maynotgi ve r i s e t o an A C C des i gnat i on. 6 tr i gger i ng hi s A C C des i gnat i on r efl ectnothi ng m or e than s tr eet - l evel drug deal i ng, and 2 b ec au se h e is n eith er a d an g ero u s crim inal n o r a d rug tr af fick er, th e statuto rym an d atory m in im u m se n ten c e o f

f if tee n y e a rs is c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. W e w ill c o n stru e h is 3 b ri ef li b era ll yan d co n side r w h ethe r en fo rce m en t of the a p p ell ate w aive r on M cB ri d e’s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m w i l l eff ecta mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. W e r ecogni ze thatthe Ei ghth A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of “c ruel and unus ual puni s hm ent s ” i ncl udes a “na r r ow pr opor t i onal i typr i nci pl e” appl y i ng t o noncapi t al sen tenc es. E w ing v . C ali fo rnia, 53 8 U . S . 1 1 , 2 0 (20 0 3 ) (plura li ty ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). C our t s have uni form l yhel d t hatthe mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence s forA r m ed C ar eer C rim in a ls, im p o se d p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e ), d o n o t v io late th e E ig h th A m endment . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R eynol ds , 215 F. 3d 1210, 1214 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( col l ect i ng cas es ) . M cB r i de has notcarr i ed hi s bur den of s how i ng a gr os s i m bal ance betw een the cr i m e and s ent ence i m pos ed. See U ni t ed St at es v. M acEw an, 445 F. 3d 237, 247- 248 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “I f the def endantfai l s t o s how a gr os s i m bal ance betw een the7

c rim e a n d th e se n ten c e , o u r a n a ly sis is a t an e n d .”). B e c a u se h e c a n n o t p re v a il o n h is E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m , enfor cementof the appe l l at e w ai verw i l l notr es ul ti n a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. Pur s uantt o t he appe l l at e w ai verw e w i l l notexer ci s e our j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fur therM cB r i de’ s appea l of hi s m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence . I V. A. M cB r i de’ s appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s M ot i on t o Suppr es s i s tw op ro n g e d . H e f

irst a ttac k s th e re a so n a b le s u sp icio n sta n d a rd a p p lied b yth e D istric t C o u rt, ar gui ng thatthe C our ts houl d have r equi r ed pr obabl e ca us e forthe i ni t i al s t op. H e next c o n ten d s th a t th e C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n u n d e r e ith e r sta n d a rd . B o th ar gum ent s appea rt o be cl ear l yperm i t t ed bythe l anguage of the appe l l at e w ai ver , w hi ch p re se rv e d M c B rid e ’s r ig h t to a p p e a l th e iss u e o f “ [ w ]h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fai l i ng t o s uppr es s the evi dence s ei zed f r om M cB r i de. ” ( A pp. 128. ) T he G overnm ent ar gues thatM cB r i de’ s new theoryof s uppr es s i on i s pr ecl uded bythe appe l l at e w ai ver agr eementbeca us e i tw as notar gued i n the C ourtbel ow . T he G overnm entar gues , i n the al t ernat i ve, thattr adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of w ai verpr ecl ude M cB r i de fr om ar gui ng on appea l a theoryof s uppr es s i on w hi ch w as notpr es ent ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . B eca us e w e agr ee thatM cB r i de fa i l ed t o pr es erve thi s ar gum entforappea l underR ul e 12( e) of the Feder al R ules of C ri m i nal Procedu re and t radi t i on al pri ncipl es of w ai ver, w e w i l l no tadd res s w h ethe r i t i s p rec lud ed b ythe a p p ell ate w aive r.“ [ T ]h e law a ro u n d v e h icle sto p s w a s u n n e c e ss a rilya n d u n ju stif iab lym u tate d to 4 req u ir e o n lyrea so n ab le su sp ici o n . ” (A p p ell an t’ s R ep lyB r. 3 . ) 8 B. I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that , abs entgood caus e, R ul e 12( e) pr ohi bi t s a cr i m i nal defe ndantfr om r ai s i ng a theoryof s uppr es s i on on appea l thatw as notar gued i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . U ni t ed St at es v. R os e, 538 F. 3d 175, 176 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . U nderR ul e 12( e) of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, “[a ] partyw ai ves anyR ul e 12( b) ( 3) defe ns e, obj ect i on, orr eques tnotr ai s ed bythe dea dl i ne the courts et s underR ul e 12( c) orbyany e x te n s io n th e c o u rt p ro v id e s . F o r g o o d c a u s e , th e c o u rt m a yg ra n t r e lie f f ro m th e w a iv e r.” W e have expr es s l yappl i ed thi s rul e t o a fa i l ur e t o fi l e a mot i on t o s uppr es s as w el l as t o a fai l ure t o incl ud e t he spec i fi c t heo ryrai sed on app eal . R ose, 53 8 F . 3d at18 2; s ee al so U ni t ed St at es v. L ockett , 406 F. 3d 207, 212 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[I ] n the cont extof a mot i on t o s uppr es s , a def

endantm us thave a dvance d s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame t heor i es of supp res si on i n the di stri ctcou rtas he or she seeks t o rel yup on i n thi s C ou rt . ”). B ecause M c Br i d e d i d n o tr a i s e h i s p r o b a b l e - c a u s e th e o ryo f s u p p r e s s i o n i n th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we deem t hatar gum entw ai ved unl es s M cB r i de i s abl e t o s how “good ca us e” f ordel ay i ng p rese n tat ion o f th is argu m en t un ti l app ea l. S ee R u le 12 (e). M cB r i de ar gues thatw e s houl d r eac h hi s ar gum entbeca us e hi s pos i t i on on appea l 4 is e n tirelyleg a l in n a tu re a n d th e p o licyo f w a iv e r – e n su rin g th a t th e re c o rd b e lo w is s uffi ci ent l ydevel oped – i s nots erved byfi ndi ng a l egal ar gum entw ai ved. W e agr ee thatM cB r i de ar gues , i n hi s r epl ybr i ef, thathi s couns el attr i al pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve 5 as s i s t ance byfai l i ng t o ar gue the i s s ue of pr obabl e ca us e and byconce di ng thatthe d e te rm in a tiv e q u e s tio n w a s o n e o f c re d ib ility. (A p p e lla n t’ s R e p ly B r. 4 -5 .)

9 h is a rg u m e n t is leg a l in n a tu re , b u t d o n o t f in d th a t su f

f icie n t to p ro v id e g o o d c a u se to voi d the pr es um pt i on of w ai ver . A s w e not ed i n R os e, i ti s “unw i s e t o excus e a de fenda nt f ro m c o m p lian c e w ith R u le 1 2 e v e n w h e re th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls th in k s th e re c o rd is s uffi ci ent l ydevel oped. T o do s o w oul d i gnor e the s peci fi c l anguage of R ul e 12, s o m e th in g w e d o n o t c o n s id e r o u rs e lv e s a t lib e rt yto d o .” R o s e , 5 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 3 n .8 . M cB r i de al s o ar gues thathi s couns el attr i al w as i neff ect i ve and thi s cons t i tut es

5 g o o d c a u se to e n ter tain th e iss u e o n a p p e a l. “[ W ]e h a v e sta ted re p e a ted lyth a t S ix th A m endmentcl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el s houl d or di nar i l ybe r ai s ed i n a col l at er al pr ocee di ng pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 r atherthan on di r ectappea l . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v . J a k e , 2 8 1 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 2 n . 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . As s u mi n g , wi th o u td e c i d i n g , th a twe m aycons i derw hethera Si xth A m endmenti s s ue cons t i tut es good caus e t o ent ert ai n a th e o ryo f su p p re ss io n n o t p re se n ted in th e D istric t C o u rt, w e c a n n o t ac c o rd re lief to M c B rid e . T h e b a sis f

o r h is c o n ten tio n – th e f a ilu re o f c o u n se l to c h a llen g e th e re a so n a b le s us pi ci on s t andar d, a pr ece ptful l yi ngr ai ned i n the l aw – i s atthe verybes tt i l t i ng at w i ndm i l l s i n D on Q ui xot e s ty l e. I tdoes notcons t i tut e good ca us e t o ent ert ai n thi s new th e o ryo f su p p re ss io n o n a p p e a l. M c B rid e h a s n o t ca rrie d h is b u rd e n o f sh o w in g g o o d c a u se f

o r f a ilu re to ra ise th is i s s ue i n the courtbel ow . T he i s s ue i s ther efor e w ai ved underFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal10

P ro c e d u re 1 2 (e ), as c o n stru e d b yo u r c o u rt in U n ited S tate s v . R o se . W e w ill p ro c e e d to r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe off i cer s had a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hat th e o c c u p a n t s o f

th e s t o p p e d v e h i c l e w e r e e n g a g i n g i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty. C. W e r evi ew a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o t he u n d erly ing fa ctua l fi n d ing s, an d w e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew as to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e law to tho se f ac ts. U n it ed S tat es v . P ere z, 28 0 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3d C ir . 2002) . U nderthe cl earerr ors t andar d, w e mustacc eptthe tr i al court ’ s fac tual d eterm ination s u n less theyare eith er (1 ) “c o m p let elyd ev o id o f m inim u m ev iden ti ary s uppor tdi s pl ay i ng s om e hue of cr edi bi l i ty , ” or( 2) “bea r [] no r at i onal r el at i ons hi p t o t he su p p o rt ive e v iden ti aryd ata.” K rasn o v v . D inan , 4 6 5 F . 2 d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 0 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 2 ). Be c a u s e we c o n c l u d e th a tM c Br i d e h a s wa i v e d a l l o th e rth e o r i e s o f s u p p r e s s i o n , we cons i deronl yhi s chal l enge t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons and w hether the i ni t i al s t op w as j us t i fi ed byr eas onabl e s us pi ci on. “[A ] n offi cerm ayconductan i nves t i gat orys t op of a movi ng vehi cl e i f he ha s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on thati t s pas s enger s ar e enga ged i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M a thu r i n, 56 1 F. 3d 17 0, 17 4 ( 3d Ci r . 20 09 ) ( c i t i ng O rne l a s v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 51 7 U. S. 6 9 0 , 6 9 3 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( c i t i n g Te r r y , 3 9 2 U. S . 1 ) ) . “ Re a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n r e q u i r e s s o me m i ni m al l evel of obj ect i ve j us t i fi cat i on form aki ng the s t op, buti ti s a l es s exac t i ng s t andar d than pr obabl e ca us e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Si l veus , 542 F. 3d 993, 999 ( 3d C i r . 2008)11

( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . R eas onabl e s us pi ci on i s es t abl i s hed w hen “s peci fi c and art i cul abl e fa ct s , t ogetherw i th al l thei rr at i onal i nfer ence s , s ugges tthatthe s us pectw as inv o lved in crim inal ac ti v ity . ” U n it ed S tat es v . B row n , 1 5 9 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). “The t es ti s one of r eas onabl enes s gi ven the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , w hi ch ca n i nclude [the defen dan t ’s ] l ocati on , a his t oryof cri m e i n the ar ea, [t he d efen dan t ’s ] nervous behavi orand eva s i venes s , and [the off i cer ’ s ] comm ons ens e j udgm ent s and inf ere n ce s ab o u t hu m an b eh av ior. ” Jo h n so n v . C am p b ell , 3 3 2 F . 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 (3d C ir . 2003) ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A ct s thatm ays eem i nnocenti n themsel ves m ay col l ect i vel yamount t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, U ni t ed St at es v. N el s on, 284 F. 3d 472, 480 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , and w e ac cor d defe r ence t o an off i cer ’ s j udgm ent , r ecogni zi ng thatthe cal cul at i on of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on i s oft en “i m pr eci s e, ” U ni t ed St at es v. R obert s on, 305 F . 3 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s w e re c lea rly err oneous . M cB r i de cha l l enges the pol i ce of fi cer s ’ t es t i m ony , poi nt i ng t o the di s par i t i es w i th hi s ow n t es t i m onyand thatof Ter ry . T he D i s tr i ctC our tand the part i es agr eed a tt he hear i ng thatthe i s s ue ca m e dow n t o the ques t i on of cr edi bi l i ty( A pp. 122- 123) , and i m pl i ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of M cB r i de’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s i s a det erm i nat i on thatthe off

i cer s ’ t es t i m onyw as m or e cr edi bl e than thatof M cB r i de and Terry . “W e r evi ew cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons , l i ke otherfac tual fi ndi ngs , undera cl ear l yerr oneous stan d ard . ” G ri d er v . K ey ston e H ea lth P lan C en t. , Inc . , 5 8 0 F . 3 d 1 1 9 , 1 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).12

R evi ew forcl earerr ori s “more defe r ent i al w i th r es pectt o det erm i nat i ons aboutthe c re d ib ili tyo f

w itn e ss e s [ ] w h e n th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n is b a se d o n tes tim o n yth a t is co h ere n t and p laus ible[.]” U n it ed S tat es v . Igb o n w a, 12 0 F . 3 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W e conc l ude thatthe pol i ce of fi cer s ’ t es t i m onyw as both coher entand pl aus i bl e and that M c B rid e h a s n o t ca rrie d h is b u rd e n o f sh o w in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons w er e cl ear l yerr oneous . See K r as nov, 465 F. 2d at1302. W e conc l ude al s o t hatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n det erm i ni ng thatO ffi cer Je f f rie s h a d a re a so n a b le s u sp icio n th a t th e v e h icle ’s p a ss e n g e rs w e re e n g a g in g in cr i m i nal act i vi ty . A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our thear d t es t i m onyfr om sev era l po li ce o ff

icers, th e d ef

en d an t and T erry , the d ri v er o f th e v eh icl e. T h e C o u rt expl ai ned that“[t ] hi s di d occuri n [an a r ea] w her e a l otof drug act i vi tyhad bee n occu ri ng . ” (A pp . 12 5. ) A dd i t i on al l y , O ffi cer J effri es had 1 9 y ears of ex peri ence a s a pol i ce of fi cerw i th 12 y ear s of s peci al i zed na r cot i cs exper i ence . T he C our tobs erved that hi s “expe r i ence and s peci al i zed tr ai ni ng . . . al l ow [s ] [O ffi cerJ eff r i es ] t o m ake i nfer ence s and deduc t i ons fr om i nform at i on thatm i ghtw el l el ude an untr ai ned per s on[. ] ” ( A pp. 1 2 5 .) H e h a s p e rf

o rm e d u n d e rc o v e r b u y s, a n d h is f e llo w p o lice o f

f ice rs te stif

ied th a t h e is a r e l i a b l e s u r v e i l l a n c e o f f i c e r . He t e s t i f

i e d c r e d i b l yth a t , wh i l e mo n i t o r i n g a h i g h - c r i me ar ea, he obs erved the def endantempt y i ng the cont ent s of a c i garand per form i ng ges tur es i ns i de of a vehi cl e thatar e cons onantw i th r ol l i ng a mar i j uana bl unt . U nderthe t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n det erm i ni ng thatO ffi cerJ eff r i es had a13

r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n th a tth e o c c u p a n t s o f th e v e h i c l e w e r e e n g a g i n g i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty. ***** W e have cons i der ed al l the cont ent i ons pr es ent ed bythe A ppel l antand conc l ude th a tn o f u r th e rd i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a ry. T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.