UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OB ER T LAFON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-10044 D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00231-KJD-C W H-1 Distric t of Ne va da , La s Ve ga s ORDER
B e fore : HAW KINS, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc u it Judge s. The pa ne l ha s vote d to de ny

a ppe lla nt’ s pe tition for pa

ne l re h e a ring. The pa ne l ha s vote d to a

m e nd the m e m orandum

disposition file d on Ja

nua ry 6, 2017. The

am e nde d m e m orandum

disposition is a

tta c he d he re to. The pe tition for pa

n e l re he aring is DENIED. No furthe r pe titions for
re he aring or pe titions for re he aring e n ba nc will be e nte rta ine d. 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OB ER T LAFON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-10044 D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00231-KJD-C W H-1
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Ke nt J. Da

wson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc u it Judge s. The Gove rnm e nt a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of R obe rt La fon’ s m otion to suppre ss phy sic a l a

nd te stim onia l e vide nc e obta ine d a s a re sult of a ve hic le stop
c onduc te d by

La s Ve ga s M e tropolita

n Polic e De pa

rtm e nt (M e t

ro) offic e rs. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s re a sona ble suspic ion de te rm ination denov o , but re vie w “ findings of historic a l fa c t for c le ar e rror an d giv[e ] ‘ due we ight to infe re n c e s dra

w n from those fa c ts by

re side n t judge s a

n d loc a l la

w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs.’ ” Unite d

State s v . C otte rman , 709 F.3d 952, 968 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Orne las v . Unite d State

s , 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)). 1. R e a sona

ble suspic ion to stop a

n individual e x ists if, in light of the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s , the offic e r ha d

“ a pa rtic ula riz e d a nd obje c t ive ba sis for suspe c ting thepa

rtic ula r pe rson stoppe d of c rim i na l a c t ivity .” Unite d State s v . Edw ards , 761 F.3d 977, 982 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting N av are ttev . C

alifornia , 134 S. C t. 1683, 1687 (2014)). We a ssum e , a s the m a gistra te judge found, tha

t the
anony m ous 911 tip wa s re lia

ble , a s the tipste r re pe ate d the inform ation in pe rson to M e t ro Offic e r C h arle s Ya

nnis upon his a

rriva l on the sc e ne . The tip a lone did not, howeve r, provide re a s ona ble suspic ion to stop La fon. The tipste r provide d no re p ort of ha ving se e n or he ard of a

ny c ontrolle d substa

nc e s or drug pa

ra phe rna l ia , a

nd he provide d no inform at ion a bout whe t he r or how La fon ha d use d the ne e dle
. Nor doe s c onside ring the gun toge the r with the re st of the tip te nd to stre ngthe n a

n infe re nc e of illic it drug use . Pre se nc e of a gun m ight be
re le va nt to a n infe re nc e of drug tra ffic k ing, but nothing in the tip sugge s te d a ny drug tra ffic king a c tivity
. C f . Unite d State

s v . N orw ood , 603 F.3d 1063, 1072 (9th
2C ir. 2010) (disc ussing theinsuffic i e nc y of “ [e ] xpe rt te stim ony indic ating tha

t drug tra ffic ke rs ‘ ge n e ra lly

use fire arm s to furthe r the ir drug c rim e s’ ” in 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1) prose c utions (quoting Unite d State s v . Rios , 449 F.3d 1009, 1014 (9th C ir. 2006))). Unlike911 e m e rge nc y c a lls from

drive rs who re porte d the ir c ars ha d be e n run off the highwa

y by da nge rous driving, se eN

av are tte , 134 S. C t. at 1690–91, or shot a

t by a m an on the stre e t, se e Edw ards , 761 F.3d a t 984–85, a

911
c a ll a bout a m an sle e ping in a

c ar with a

ne e dle and a gun doe s not de sc ribe

“ c o nduc t [tha

t] be a rs . . . gre a t . . . re se m

b l anc e to pa

ra d igm atic m anife sta

tions of”
an ongoing a

nd da nge rous c rim ina l a c tivity , s e e id. (quoting N av are tte , 134 S. C t.
a t 1691). All things c o nside re d, the tip a lone did not provide “ re a sona ble suspic ion of
an ongoing a

nd da nge rous c rim e .” Se e Edw ards , 761 F.3d a t 984. 2. If the tip a lone ha d provide d a re lia ble re port of a

n ongoing a

nd da nge rous c rim ina l a c tivity , polic e c orroboration of c rim ina l a spe c ts re porte d in a
re lia ble tip m a y not ha ve be e n ne c e ssa

ry . Se e N av are tte , 134 S. C t. at 1691; se e also Edw ards , 761 F.3d a t 984 (de sc ribing the

fourth N av a re tte fa c tor). He re , howe v e r, the tip a lone did not support re a sona ble suspic ion to stop La fon, so we
a lso c onside r the inform ation Ya nnis obtaine d

in his inve stiga

tion pre c e ding the stop.
3Yannis’ s inve stiga tion de tra c te d from , rat

he r tha n a dde d to, thewe ak infe re n c e s of possible

c rim ina l a c tivity

tha t m i ght be drawn from

the tip. Upon Yannis’ s arriva l at the sc e ne , the 911 c a lle r told him in pe rson tha

t the Le xus ha d
re c e ntly drive n off towa

rds the ba c k of the c om

ple x. Whe n Ya

nnis loc ate d

the Le xus on theoppositeside of the c om ple x, La fon wa s not “

pa sse d out.” R athe r, La fon ha d drive n, pa

rke d, a nd e xite d the ve hic le . Ya

nnis did not re

port se e ing a

ny signs of im

pa irm e nt. The se obse rvations te nde d to dispe l a ny re a sona

ble infe re nc e s that m a y have be e n dra

wn re ga rding a n a c ute drug ove rdose or othe r m e dic a l
e m e rge n c y

and furthe r we ake ne d the a lre a dy we ak infe re nc e s of re c e nt ille ga l drug posse s sion. 3. The only

othe r fa c t the Gove rnm e nt offe re d to support re a sona

ble suspic ion wa s Ya

nnis’ s be lie f tha

t the a p artm e nt c om

p le x whe re La fon ha d be e n pa rke d wa s a “ h ot spot”for c rim ina l a c tivity . W e a s sum e the “ hot spot”te rm in this c a s e de signa

te s a loc a liz e d “ high-c rim e ” are a . “ [O] ffic e rs a re not re quire d to ignore the re le va

nt c ha ra c te ristic s of a

loc ation in de te rm i ning whe t he r the
c irc um s ta nc e s are suffic ie ntly

suspic ious to wa

rrant furthe r inve s tiga

tion.” Illinois
v . W ardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). Still, c iting “ an are a a s ‘ high-c rim e ’
re quire s c are ful e xam ination by the c ourt” of offic e r te stim ony and “ a fa ir a

nd

4forthright e va luation of thee vide nc e .” Unite d State s v . Monte ro-C

amargo , 208 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt note d Ya nnis’ s “ be lie f that the a

p artm e nt c om

p le x wa s a

‘ h ot spot’ of c rim e .” Ya

nn is te stifie d

tha t he ba se d the c ha

ra c te riz ation on “ c a lls for se rvic e ,” but a

highe r num

be r of c a l ls for the are a

m ay sim p ly re fle c t tha

t the
a pa rtm e nt c om

ple x wa s high-de nsity

housing stoc k in a

low-de nsity

are a . As no
a c tua l inform a tion unde rly ing the “ hot spot”de signa tion wa s proffe re d in this c a se , the d e signa

tion wa s e ntitle d to m inim a l we ight. 1 In light of the

tota l ity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, we a gre e with thedistric t c ourt that M e tro la c ke d re a sona

ble suspic ion to stop La fon’ s ve hic le
. AFFIRM E D.

1 W e note tha

t Ya nnis re late d a

se t of inc onsiste nt a c c o unts on se ve ra l m a tte rs, inc luding whe the r the are a wa s a “ high-c rim e ” are a , whic h we ak e ne d a ny infe re n c e s tha

t c ould be draw n from

his te stim ony . 5