F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v.
E DDI E RAY M C C L EN DON ,

Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 12-30015

D.C. No. 3:11-cr- 05238-RJ B- 1

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Wester

n District of Washington Robert J . Br

y an, Senior District Judge, Pre siding Argued and Submitted Fe bruar y 8, 2013—Seattle, Washington Filed Apr il 19, 2013

Be fore : Ray

mond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould,
and Ric ha rd A. Pa e z, Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Op ini on by Judg e Go uldU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y *

Crim inal L aw
Th e pa ne l a ff ir me d a c onvic tio n for

be inga fe lon in possession of a f

irea rm in a ca se in which the de fenda nt argued that the discovery of a ha ndg un was the pr oduct of a n illega l searc h and an illeg al seizure.
Th e pa ne l he ld t hat be c a us e the de fe nd ant d id n ot s ub mit to t he a uthori ty of the po lic e wh o d re w the ir g un s a nd tol d him that he was unde r ar rest, he w as not seized befor e he tos se d th e g un awa

y and wa s ta c kle d by

of fi c e rs , a nd thu s lo st his ability to challeng e the a dmissibi lity of the gun as fr

uit of an illeg al seizure. The pa n el held that the discove ry of the gun was too attenuate d from a c oncede dly -illeg al sea rch o f the defe ndan t ’s bac kpack to wa rra nt suppression, wher e the backpa ck sea

rch w as not the but-for cause of the discovery of the handgun, and the defe ndant’s act of walkingaw ay from the police a fter the police made it clear that they wer e try ing to arre st him was an interve n ing e vent that purg ed any taint from the ba ckpac k sear ch.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 3
CO UN SEL
Wil liam R. Miche lman (ar g ued), L akew ood, Washington, for De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.
Helen J. Brunne r (a

rgued), Appellate Chief, Offic e of the United S tates Attorney for the Wester

n District of Washin gt o n, Seattle, Washington; Jenny A. Durka n, United States Attorney , and J esse Wil liams, Spec ial Assistant United States Attorney , Offic e of the United States Attorney for the We s tern District of Washing ton, Tacoma , Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee

.

OP IN ION
GOUL D, Circuit J udg e:
Ed die Ray

Mc Cle nd on a

pp e a ls h is c onvic tio n p ur su ant t o a c on ditio na l pl e a

a g re e me nt f

or on e c ount o f f

e lon in possession of a fir ear

m in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g )(1)
and 92 4( a )( 2)

. He c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr on e ou sly denied his motion to suppr ess the handgun that for m ed t he basis for his convic tion because the di scover y of that handgun was the pr oduct of a

n il l egal se arc h and an illeg al seizure. We m us t f ir st d e c ide wh e the r M c Cle nd on wa s sei zed

in violation of t h e C onstitut ion by the police be fore he tossed th e g un aw ay. If M c C l e n d o n w a s s e i z e dun c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y, then the re cover ed handgun should be suppresse d as a f ruit of the poisonous tre e. Se e Un ite d S tate s v . S mi th , 633 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2011). I f we conclude that there was no illeg al
se izur e be fo re Mc Cle nd on thr e w the g un , w e ne xt mus t decide whe t h er discovery of the ha

ndg un could fa irly

be
c on sid e re d a

fr uit of the ill e g a l ba c kp a c k s e arc h, re qu ir ingitsU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 4

s u p p ression. See W

ong Sun v. United States , 3 7 1 U

. S. 4 7 1, 484–87 (1963). B eca

use we hold that McClendon was not seized befor e disca

rdi ng the handgun and that the ha ndg un was not a f

ruit of the i l l egal ba ckpac k sear ch, we reje ct Mc Cle nd on ’s c la im a

nd a ff ir m.
I
At around 2:20 a .m. on a spring nig ht, two police offic ers responde d to a 911 ca ll pl ac ed by an elde rly

disabled homeowner

who fe are d a possi ble i nvader

. The homeowner repor ted that an unknown vehicle was parked in his drivewa y with its engine and lig hts off and that someone ha d knocked on his door. The homeowner w as so frig htened that he had
arme d himself with a cr owbar . Whe n p o l i ce arr ived at the
scene , a ner

vous woman, who pol i ce t houg ht was under the influence of methamphe tamine, eme rge d from the dr iver’s seat of the car . The woma n, later ide n t i fied a s Rosemary J ohnson, said that the ca

r ra n out of g as and that McClendon, wh o s he sa id h a d b e e n in a lot of tr ou ble be fo re, had left to g et more g as. The story

about runningout of g as quickly was shown by events to be inc redible: The car ’s ig ni t i o n was turned on. The car

started.
The woma

n consente d to a sear ch of the car . Be fore the
sear ch commenced, the woman wa rned the office rs that there
was a mache te in the ca

r that belong ed to McCl en d o n . The office rs at once found the mac hete on the f loor u n der the front passe ng er’ s seat. The y also found seve ral t y

p es of drug s and drug paraphe rnalia in the woman’s purse, including a cig are tte box containingpills, seve ral one -inch-by -one- inch bag g ies coated with a white c ry s t al l ine re sidue, and aU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 5

T he pi l l s wer e i dent i f

i ed as t he nar cot i cs Cl onaze pam an d Lo r aze pam 1 and t he ant i depressan t T razodo ne. T he r es i due i n t he pi pe an d baggi es f i el d t es t ed po s i t i ve f

or met hamphet ami ne. s mo k in g p ip e c o a te d

w it hth e s ame r e s id

u e. The woma

n 1 claimed owne rship of some, but not all, of t h e d ru gs and drug -re lated items, and she w as ar rested.
The office rs then found a backpa ck behind the front passeng er’ s seat of the car

. The woman said that it belonge d to McClendon. Wit ho u t consent from the non-pre sent Mc Cle nd on , o ne of the of fi c e rs se arc he d th e ba c kp a c k. Th is
sear ch re vealed a saw ed-of f shotg un with a filed-of f ser ial number, ammu n i tion for the gun, a blac k wig , two walkietalkies, binoculars, a zippered ca se conta ining two presc ription pill s, and a Saf ewa y rec eipt with McClendon’s
name on it.
Pol ic e the n r an a

re c or ds check o n th e name “ Ed die McClendon” a

nd found one person matchingthe phy sical de sc ri pti on g ive n by Ms. John so n; t hat pe rs on

ha d p re vio us ly been c onvicted of the felony of riot wit h a deadly

wea pon. Whil e the r ecor ds chec k was be ing pe rfor med, bac k-up office rs, including a K- 9 unit, arrived at the s ce n e, and the police we nt to look for McClendon with the aim of ar resting him

. Spotti ng a man matc hing Mc Clendon’s descr iption walkingdown the stree t about 50 o r 6 0 y ards a way , a g roup of off ic e rs a pp ro a c he d h im. Whe n th e su sp e c t w a s w ith in
ear shot, one deputy asked the man i f he w as Eddie. The man r e p l i e d , “ Y e s , th a t ’ s m e , ” an d tur n e d an d b e g ant o w a l k

aw ay. The off icer s then drew

their guns, told McClendon he was under arr est, and order ed him to show his ha nds

. ButU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 6
McClendo n d i d not comply . He did not stop. He did not show hi s h an d s

. He c ontinued to walk awa y . When the of fi c e r s g o t s t i l l c l o s e r t o M c C l e n d o n , M c C l e n d o n t o o k his hands and “ pushed them dow n towards his wa istband and [aga in] turned a

way from [the office rs],” making a fling ing mot ion . T he of

fi c e rs then

c los e d th e dis tanc e and

fo rc ibl y arr e ste d M c Cle nd on , t ackl inghim and pla c inghim

in ha nd c uf fs . The y fo un d a loa de d s ilv e r h and g un , s til l w arm to the touch, on the g rass a few fee t a way

. McClendo n d en ied tossing the gun and said that the ba ckpac k was not his. At the time of McClendon’s a

rre st, he was wear ing a

black knit ca

p, w h i c hp o l i c e f

o un d t o b e a r o l l e d

- u p s k i m a s k , o n e w i the ye holes and a

mouth hol e. Bu t M cC lendon had no skis. And there was no snow.
Mc Cle nd on

wa s in dic te d o n tw o c ounts of fe lon in possession of a firear

m and ammunit ion (for the shotgun a nd for the ha ndg un) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 9 2 2(g )(1) and 924(a) (2) a

nd on one count of

possession of an unre g istered firea rm (for the shotgun) in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. He filed a pr etrial motion to suppr ess “a ll evidence obtained dire ctly

and/or de rived fr om the unl awf ul sear ch and seizure of .

. . [t he] backpa ck,” inc luding the ha ndg un. After
sever al hea

ring s an d i n i tial rulings, the district c ourt found that the sea

rch of the backpack was unlawf ul, and g rante d the motion to s uppress the e vidence in the backpack. B ut the court de nied the motion to suppress the handgun, rea soning that the police likely had probable cause to arre st McClendon and did not eff

ectuate the ar

rest unti l afte r McClendon discarde d the gun. Alterna t i v ely , the district court re asoned that police had a

mple g rounds to stop McClendon under Te rry v . O hio , 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968) ( holding that a n office r may , consistent with the Four th Amendment, conduc t a brief , investigatory

stop when h e or she ha s rea sonable suspicionU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 7

T h e G o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t co n te n d tha t t h e se a rc h o f M c C le n d o n ’s 2 b ackp ack was l awf

ul

. T hat i s no t s urpri si ng b ecause, as t he d i st ri ct judge
n o te d , no e x ige n c y im p e lled p o lice to se a rc h the b a c k p a c k w itho u t a
w a rr a n t o r th e o w n e r’s c o n se n t an d M s. J o h n so n ha d no a u tho rity to
c o n se n t o n M c C le n d o n ’s b e h a lf. that c ri min a l a c tiv ity

is a fo ot) . M cC len don p le a de d guil ty pursuant to a conditional plea ag ree ment to one count of fe lon in possession of a fire arm, re taining the ri gh t to appea l the court’s r uling on his un succe ssful motion t o suppress the handgun. The other two counts wer e dismissed. McClendon was sente nced to se venty -two mon t h s in prison and three y e ars of su

pe rv ise d r e le a se . M c Cle nd on tim e ly a pp e a le d h is
c onvic tio n, c ha lle ng ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nial of hi s motion to s uppress the ha ndg un. 2

II

Mc Cle nd on

c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d whe n it denied his motion to suppress the handgun beca use discover

y of the gu n was the product of his seizure, which in turn w as prompted by

the illeg al sea

rch of his backpa ck. See Uni ted Sta te s v . M c Car ty , 648 F.3d 820, 839 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that “ fr uit s o f a n unla wf ul s e arc h c ann ot pr ov ide pr ob a ble
cause for a

n arr est”). T he Gove rnment c o n cede s that the office rs “clear ly

soug ht to arre st Eddie Ray McClendon base d on the fruits of . . . the unla wful sea rch of [t he] backpa ck.” But the G overnme nt contends, among other thing s, that McCle n d o n w a s n o t y e t s e iz e d w h e n h e d is c ar d e d the handgun, maki n g the aba ndoned gun admissible under Calif ornia v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 625–29 (1991) (h old ingthat a

pe rs on is not se ize d for purp os e s of the F ourt h Amendment whe n he or she fails to submit t o a law
e nf or c e me nt of

fi c e r’ s sh owof

a uth or ity and is n ot p hy sic a llyU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 8 touched by

the offic ers) . We ordere d s u pplemental brie fing on this iss ue. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we revie w de novo the district c ourt’s denial of a motion to suppress evidenc e. United States v. Caseres , 533 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008).
Th e F ourt

h A me ndme nt pr ote c ts “ a g a ins t unre a so na ble
sear ches a nd seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. I V. Sear ches a nd seizures that offe nd the Four th Amendment ar e unlawf ul and evidenc e obta i n ed as a

direc t or indirect r esult of such inv a sio ns is c on sid e re d “ fruit of the po iso no us tr e e ” and

is inadmissible under t he exclusionary rule. See W

ong Sun , 371 U.S. at 484–87. I n d ec iding whe ther e vidence is the product of a

n unlawful seizure, w e first de t ermine whether the def endant wa s s eiz ed at the time the ha ndg un was discarde d. See U

nited States v. Hernandez , 27 F.3d 1403, 1406–07 (9th Cir. 1994); se e als o S mi th , 6 3 3 F

. 3 d a t8 9 2

. If so, we then c onsider whe ther the se izure was unlawful. See Hernande z , 2 7 F .3 d at 14 06 –0 7; se e als o S mi th , 633 F.3d at 892.
Th e g e ne ra l ru le is that “ a pe rs on ha s b e e n ‘ se ize d’ wi thi n the me anin g of

the F ourt h A me ndme nt onl y

if , in vie w o f a ll of the c ir c ums tanc e s su

rr ound in g th e inc ide nt, a

re a so na ble person would have believe d that he wa s not free to leave.” Un ite d States v . M

e nd e nh all , 44 6 U. S. 5 44 , 5 54 (1 98 0) . T his deter mination is “a ne c essa ry , but not a sufficient , condition for seizure.” Hodari D. , 4 99 U. S. at 62 8. In a dd iti on , s ome form of “ touching or submissi o n ” i s also requir ed. Id. at 62 6– 27 ; se e als o Br e nd

lin v . Calif

or nia , 551 U.S. 249, 254 (200 7 ) ( “ A p o li c e o f

f ic e r ma y ma k e a s e iz ur e b y a

show of authority and without the use of phy sical force, but ther e is no
se izur e wi tho ut a c tua l su

bmi ssi on ; oth e rw ise , th e re is at mo st an attempt e d s e izur e , s o f ar a s th e F ourt

h A me ndme nt i sU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 9

T he T hi rd C i rcui t , how ever, h a s co ncl ud ed t hat t here was no 3

su b m issio n to a sh o w o f au tho rity w h e re a d e fen d a n t f a iled to ra ise his h a n d s in c o m p lian c e w ith a p o lice d ire c tive , “m o v e d his h a n d s to w a rd his wai st b and, an d ul t i mat el y r et r eat ed i nt o t he hous e. ” Uni t ed St at es v. W at er m an , 5 6 9 F .3 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (a lso h o ld ing tha t b e ing he ld at gu npoi nt f

al l s s hor t o f

t he t ouchi ng requi r ed t o es t abl i s h a s ei zur e u nder H o d a ri D

. w h e re th e d ef end ant do es not s ub m i t t o a s ho w o f aut ho ri t y ). T he Sixt h C i rcui t l i kewis e hel d t hat ef f o rt s to wal k or “push” t hrough a door wa y pa s t pol i ce of f i ce r s “ do n ot c on s t i t u t e s u bmi s s i on t o a sho w of aut hor i t y
. ” U n ited S ta te s v . S m ith , 5 9 4 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). W e f i nd t hes e c as es per s uas i ve. c on c e rn e d. ” ); Cnt

y . o f Sac ra me nto v . Le wis , 523 U.S. 833, 845 n.7 (1998) ( “Attempted se izures of a pe rson are beyond the scope of the F ourth Amendment.” ).

Prece dent instructs that whe re an individual flee s from po lic e , n o s ub mis sio n oc c ur s unti l the de fe nd ant is p hy sic a lly subdued. See Hodari D. , 49 9 U .S. a t 62 9 ( c on c lud ingthat a y oung man runningfrom poli ce wa s not seized until he wa s ta c kle d) ; se e als o B re nd

lin , 551 U.S. at 262 (“[A] fle eingman is not seiz ed until he is phy sically overpow ere d, but one sittin g in a c ha ir may su

bmi t to a uth or ity by no t g e tti ngup to run aw ay .”). But we have not addresse d a situation where , as he re , a de fendan t wal ks awa

y fr om a nd re fu se s to c omp ly wi th t he c omm and s o f o ff

ic e rs wh o a

re a tte mpt ingto a

rr e st him, in s t ead rea chinginto his waistband. We look to the 3 totality of the circ umstances to de termine w h ether McClendon submitted to authority such that he w as seized befor e disca

rdingthe gun. See U

nited States v. W

ashington , 490 F.3d 765, 773–74 ( 9th Cir. 2007).
McClendon contends that his case is distinguishable from Hodari D. beca

use he submitted to authority when he identified himself in response to the officer’ s inquiry . But weU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 10

T h is p o sitio n is re info rc e d b y s e v e r a l ca se s fro m the T h ird C irc u it. 4 See , e

. g. , Un ited S ta te s v . S m ith , 575 F. 3d 3 08 , 3 16 (3d C i r

. 200 9) ( “ T wo s t eps t owar ds t he hood of a car do es not mani f es t s ubmi s s i on t o t he po l i ce o ff ic e rs ’ sho w o f au tho rity.” ) ; Uni t ed St at es v

. Val ent i ne , 232 F. 3d 350, 353, 359 ( 3d Ci r

. 2000) ( h ol di n g t h at momen t ary c o m pl i an ce w as n ot
eno ugh t o t ri gger a sei zure w here thr ee m en wal ked away f rom po l i ce and one t hen r es po nded “ W ho, me? ” bef ore cha r gi ng t owar d an of f i cer i n a n at t em p t t o f

l ee). have pr eviously

“dec line[d] to adopt a rule wher eby momentary

hesitation and direc t ey e co ntact prior to f light constitute submissi on to a show of a uthority .” Sm ith , 633 F.3d at 893 (quotin g He r n andez , 2 7 F .3 d at 14 07 ); see als o U nite d S tates v . B al dwin , 496 F.3d 215, 218 ( 2d Cir. 20 07 ) ( “ [T]o c omp ly

wi th a n ord e r to stop

. . . a

su sp e c t mu st d o mo r e th anh a lt

te mp o r ar il y

. . . . ” )

. A n d

in Un i t ed

States
v. Sm ith , we he ld that there wa s n o submissi on or seizure when a defe ndant momentarily hesitated be fore flee ing f rom police. 63 3 F.3d at 891, 893. I n that case , the def endant initially stepped towa

rd a pat ro l ca r and r esponded to a n office r’s re quest t o s t o p by saying e ither “Who? Me? ” or “W hat for?” before bolting. Id. a t 89 1. Ap ply ingour r ule fr om He rn an de

z and Sm ith , we hold that McClendon’s initial
re sp on se of ans we ri ng “ Ye s, that’ s me ” wa s no t su ff ic ie nt t o s h o wth a th e h a d

s u b m i t t e d t o th e o f f i c e r s ’ a u th o r i ty. 4
McClendon n ex t contends that he was seized whe n the of fi c e rs dr e w the ir

g un s and tol d h im that he wa s und e r a rr e st. Mc Cle nd on

str e sse s th e natur e of the fo rc e us e d ag a ins t hi m and cites to U

n ite d S ta te s v

. S te p h e ns , w he re we he ld t

hat a man who re mained seated af ter police officers boar ded and positioned themselves in the front, middle, and back of a bus was seized eve n though the office rs informed the passeng ers that no on e wa s und e r a

rr e st a nd th at anyon e wh o w ish e d to leave was fr ee to do so. 206 F .3d 914, 916–18 (9th Cir.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 11
20 00 ). In th a t c a se , we re a so ne d th a t th e de fe nd ant, wh o d id
su bmi t, w a s pla c e d in a Ho bs on ’s c ho ic e be c a us e he ha d o nly two options: (1) g et off the bus and potentially g ive the off icer s rea sonable suspicion to stop him or (2) stay on the bus and answe r the off

icers’ questions. Id. at 917. B ut McClendon misses the point of Ho da ri D . L ike the def endant in S tephens , a

r e a s o n a b le p e r s o nin

M c Cl e n d o n ’ s s h o es wo uld no t ha ve fe lt f re e to l e ave . T he cr iti c a l di ff e re nc e is that, f a c e d w ithsu c h a

uth or ity , M c Cle nd on

did no t su bmi t. Instead, a lthough he was order ed at g unpoint to stop and put up his hands, McClendo n t u rned a nd walked a

way , not r a is in g h is h an d s

. S

ee Ho dari D. , 499 U.S. at 626 (“[A] policeman y elling ‘Stop, in the name of the law!’ at a f leeing fo rm th a t c on tin

ue s to fl e e

. . . . is n o[t] [a ] se izur e .” ); c f. U n ite d S ta te s v

. W ood , 9 81 F.2d 536, 540–41 ( D.C. Cir. 1992) (holdingthat defe ndant submitted to au thority when, up on he ari ngthe c omm and

to “ ha lt r ig ht t

he re ,” he fr oze in his tracks, droppe d a pistol on the gro u n d , and did not otherwise ig nore or ders) . McClendon did not display any i n t e n t i o no f

s u b m i t t i n g t o th e o f

f i c e r s ’ a u th o r i ty.
Mc Cle nd on

a lso did no t f a c e a Ho bs on ’s c ho ic e be c a us e the of fi c e rs ha d a lr e a dy

de te rm ine d th at the y

ha d p ro ba

ble
cause to arre st him and had communicate d their intent in no
u n certain terms to McClendon by telling him he wa s under
arr e st a nd to r a ise his ha

nd s. Mc Cle nd on kn e w that he w ou ld have be e nar

r e s te d r e g ar d le s s o f

h is a c ti o n s

. Y e t h e r e f

u sed t o s u b m i tt o p o l i c e a

u th o r i ty.
McClendon ar g ues that because he walked awa y from the po lic e , in ste a d of runn ing , h e su ff ic ie ntl y su bmi tte d to the ir
a uth or ity , dist inguis hin g him se lf fr om t he su sp e c t in Ho da ri D

. But Mc Cle nd on ’s a c t of wa lki ngawa

y sti ll showed a failure to subm i t t o t he author ity of the police ,U NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 12

B eca us e i t i s i r r el eva nt t o t he adm i s s i bi l i t y of t he han dgun , wh i ch was 5 di s ca r ded bef

or e t h e pol i ce t ac k l ed M cCl en don , M cCl en don doe s n ot q u e stio n , an d w e d o no t a d d re ss, w h e the r th e re w a s p ro b a b le c a u se fo r h is
eve nt ual s ei zur e. pa rt ic ula rl y wh e n co up le d with Mc Cle nd on ’s re fu sa l to ra ise his hands. S

e e H e rn andez , 2 7 F.3d at 1405, 1407 (holding that a man w ho re a c he d into h is p ants to d isc ard a g un wh ile flee ing “ never

submitt ed to autho ri ty ”). Mor eover , Mc Cle nd on ’s a c t of

re a c hin g int o h is p ants po se d a thr e a t to the of fi c e rs . McC le nd on ne ve r sub mitte d to poli c e a uth or ity befor e he w as tac kl ed. L ike the suspec ts in both Smith and Hodari D. , M c Cle nd on

wa s n ot p hy sic a lly

tou c he d d

ur inghis initial encounter w ith the p o l i ce and, because he did not submit t o the offic ers’ show of a u t h o rity , he wa s not seized until h e wa s b rought to the g round. Se e Sm ith , 633 F.3d at 89 3; see also Hodari D. , 499 U.S. at 629.
McClendon also argues that the police office rs wer e acting illega lly when they raised their g uns and decla red that he wa s und e r a

rr e st a nd the re fo re he had no ob lig a tio n to s u b m i t t o th e i r i l l e g a l a

u th o r i ty. Assuming, without

5 deciding , that the office rs initially had no author ity

to stop or ar re s t McClendon, we still conclude McClendon was not seized until he was phy sically appre hended. See Sm ith , 633 F.3d at 892 (dec lining to re ach t h e q uestion of whethe r po lic e ha d r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion to sto p the de fe nd ant b e c a us e de fe nd ant d id n ot s ub mit

to a sh owof po lic e a uth or ity ); see als o Uni te d S

tates v . G ar c ia , 516 F.2d 318, 319–20 ( 9th Cir. 1975) (holdingth at “whe re the illega l conduct of the police is on l y a n ece ssary

condition leadingup to the suspect’s a ct [of v o lu n ta r il y f le e in g ], n o ta int att a c h e s to h is c o n d u c t” ). Reg ardle ss of how unre asonable t h e officer s’ ac tions were,
and re g ard le ss of how r e a so na ble it w a s f

or Mc Cle nd on

toU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 13

B ecause t here was no sei zure unt i l af t er M cC l end o n had dis card ed t he 6 h an dg u n , w e do n ot ex ami n e wh et h er pol i ce h ad r ea s on abl e s u s pi ci on or p rob ab l e cause before t hen. fee l restra ined, he did not submit to authority and ther efore was not seized until he was tac kled. See H odari D. , 499 U. S. at 626. T h e ru le of Hodari D. cre ates ince ntives for futur e defe ndants to submit t o asser ted police a

uthority , thereby avoiding an esc alation of conflict that could have letha l conseque nces. See Tenne ssee v . Garner , 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985) ( holding that de adly forc e may

be used if ne cessa

ry wher e an office r has probable cause to be lieve the s u s p ect p o s e s a s i g n i f i c an tth r e a t o f

d e a tho r s e r i o u s p h ys i c a l i n

j ur y)

. This was one of

the aims of Ho da ri D

. See 499 U. S

. at 627 (“Unlawful orde rs will not b e dete rre d, moreove r, by sanctioningthroug h the exclusionary rule those of

them that
are no t obey ed.”)

. Be cause McClendon did not submit to the authority of the po lic e , he wa s not se ize d b e fo re he wa s ta c kle d a nd thu s lo st his a bil ity to c ha lle ng e the a dmi ssi bil ity of the ha nd g un a s a fruit of a n illega l seizure. 6

III
Althou gh we have conc luded that McClendon wa s not se ize d unti l a ft e r h e tos se d h is gun , we mus t als o c on sid e r i f the handgun should have be en suppre ssed as a fruit of the il le g a l s e ar c ho f

M c Cl e n d o n ’ s b a c k

pack. See W

ong Sun , 37 1 U .S. a t 48 4– 87 . We re je c t this ar g ume nt fo r two re a so ns

. First, the se arc h of McClendon ’s bac kpack w as not the but-for c ause of

the discovery o f t he handgun. One of the office rs testified that he “[a]bsol utely ” would h av e goneU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 14 looking f or McClendon to t alk t o him reg ardle ss of the sea rch of the ba ckpac k. He would ha ve l ooked for

McClendon

“ [b ]e c a u s e M c C l e n d o n

w o u l d b e a p e r s o no f

i n t e r e s ti nthi s inc ide nt

. . . . [an d] [a]t the ve ry le a st, [the off ice r] wo uld have w anted to find . . . M r. McClendon while [the office r] further ed [his] investigation.” The c ircumstance s supported th i s t e s t i m o n y: p o l i c e h a d b e e nc a l l e d

t o t h e s c e n e b y a frig htened homeowner, a car was pa rked in a resident’ s dr ive wa y late a t ni g ht, the car was no t out of g a s a s it s occupa nt stated, a mac hete belong ing to Mc Clendon was fo un d in the c ar, and

ill e g a l dr

ug s and dr ugparaph ern a lia
wer e found in the occupant’s purse. The judg e ac cepte d the office r’s testimony as credible. Bec ause the testimony shows th a t t h e il le g a l s e ar c ho f

th e b a c k p a c k w a s n o t t

h e b u t- for
cau s e o f th e d is c o v e r

y o f th e h an d g un , w e reje ct McClendon’s ar g ument that the handgun should be excluded
as a fruit of the illega l ba ckpac k sear ch. See Se gura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796, 815 (1984) (“ [O ]ur cases make clea r that evidenc e will not be excluded as ‘f ru i t’ unless the illega lity is at least t he ‘but for’ ca use of the disc overy

of the evidenc e. Suppression is not justified unless the c halleng ed evidenc e is in some sense the product of illega l gove rnmental activity .” (inter

nal quotation marks omitted)). Second, eve n if t h e p olice we re motivated to sea rch f or McClendon bec ause of

what they found in the bac kpack, w e would s till conclude that the handgun was not a f ruit of the ill e g a l ba c kp a c k s e arc h und e r the pr inc ipl e e sta bli sh e d in United States v. Garcia. 516 F.2d at 319–20. I n Ga rc ia , a border patrol off icer direc ted a motorist to a seconda ry border chec kpoint based on the motorist’s unusual demea nor and
c h ar a c te r is ti c s o f th e mo to r is t’ s v e h ic le

. Id

. at 319. The motorist drove to the seconda ry chec kpoint, parked momentarily , and then spe d off. Id

. A car chase ensued a ndU NI TED S T A T ES V

. M C C L EN DON 15 the ag ents ultimately

stopped the motorist and found marijuana in the car

. Id . We ass u med that the stop at the seconda ry chec kpoint was an illeg al seizure, but conc luded that the motorist’s dec i sion to flee wa s an interve ning circ umstance that purg ed t h e primary taint of the illeg al seizure. Id . at 319–20. Her e, McClendon’ s act of wal k i ng awa y from the pol i ce after

the police made it clear

that they
wer e trying to a

rre st him also was an inter v en i n g event that purg ed any

taint from the prior ba ckpac k sear ch.

For these re ason s, we c onclude that the disc overy of the handgun was too attenuated from the ba ckpac k sear ch to have be e n th e fr

uit of that il le g a l a c t.

IV

Be cause we hold that the ha ndg un was n o t a fr uit of a seizure or a

fruit of t h e i l l egal ba ckpac k sear ch, the district
c ourt did no t e rr in de nying Mc Cle nd on ’s mot ion to s up pr e ss the handgun. Our re asoningis differe n t fr o m t hat of the district court, but we ma

y aff irm on an y b asi s supported by the re cord a

nd d o s o here

. See U

nited States v. Pope , 686 F.3d 1078, 1083 ( 9th Cir. 2012).

AF F IRMED.