J udge R os emar y S. Pool er , or i gi nal l yas s i gned t o thi s panel , di d notpart i ci pat e i n t he * c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. T h e re m a in in g tw o m e m b e rs o f th e p a n e l, w h o a re in agr eemen t, h av e d eterm ined this m att er in a cc o rda n ce w ith S ec o n d C ir cu itInternal O per at i ng P roc ed u re E (b). 09-1718 -cr Unit e d S tate s v . H er

ring UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I O N T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D O N OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I T H T H I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E NDI X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on t he 30 dayof A pr i l , tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W
. HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges
. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 1718- cr J I M M Y HE RR I NG, D ef endant

-Appel lant .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L A N T : M A R IA N N E M A R IA N O , F ed era l P u b lic D efe nder ’ s O ffi ce f

orthe W est ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, B uffa l o, N ew Y or k. AP P E AR I NG F OR AP P E L L E E : J O SE PH M
. T R IP I, A ssis t ant U ni t ed St at es A tto rn e y , f

orK athl een M
. M ehl tr ett er , U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, B uffa l o, N ew Y or k.I n hi s pl ea agr eement , H err i ng s peci fi cal l y pr es erved hi s r i ghtt o appea l the di s tr i ct 1 court ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence
. T he agr eement s t at es thats houl d H err i ng pr evai l on appea l , he w i l l be perm i t t ed t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. 2 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e W estern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk ( R i char d J
. A r car a, C hi ef Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e j u d g me n te n t e r e d o n Ap r i l 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , i s AF F I RMED
. D efe ndant J i m m y H err i ng, w ho s t ands convi ct ed aft er a gui l typl ea of bei ng a fe l on in p o sses sion o f a firearm , see 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), a p p e a ls th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to
su p p ress e v iden ce an d stat em en ts ob tai n ed p u rsua ntt o w hath e a ll eg es w as a n u n law fu l T erry
s t op. See Ter r y v. O hi o, 392 U
. S. 1 ( 1968)
. H err i ng cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng 1 is i n f e c ted b y e rro n e o u s fa c tu a l f in d in g s, w h ich in a n y e v e n t f a il t o m a n if

e st th e re a so n a b le
s us pi ci on nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s t op. W e rev iew the fi r s tchal l enge f orcl earerr or , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. C as ado, 303 F
. 3 d 4 4 0 , 443 ( 2d C i r . 2002) , and the s econd de novo, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. L ucky , 569 F
. 3 d 101, 105- 06 ( 2d C i r . 2009) , m i ndful thatthe l evel of
s us pi ci on nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s t op i s l es s than a “fai rpr obabi l i ty ” of w r ongdoi ng and
cons i der abl yl es s than “pr oof of w r ongdoi ng bya pr epond era n ce of the evi dence , ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sokol ow , 490 U
. S. 1, 7 ( 1989) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. B ay l es s , 201 F. 3d 116, 133 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( obs ervi ng thats t op chal l enge r equi r es cons i der at i on of t ot al i tyof evi dence

“ th r o u g h th e e y e s o f

a re a so n a b le a n d c a u tio u s p o lice o f f ice r o n th e sc e n e , g u id e d b yh is exp eri ence a nd trai ning” (i nternal qu otat i on m arks o m i t t ed))
. In ap ply i ng these st and ards,3

we a s s u me th e p a r t i e s ’ f a mi l i a r i tywi th th e f

a c t s a n d r e c o r d o f

p r i o rp r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we
re f e re n c e o n ly as n e c e s s a ry to e x p la in o u r d e c is io n to a f f ir m . 1. Factual Fi ndi ngs I n r ej ect i ng H err i ng’ s T err ychal l enge, the di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed i n i t s ent i r etyt he R eportand R ecomm endat i on i s s ued byM agi s tr a t e J udge H ugh B
. Scot t , w ho, aft era hea r i ng, found that( 1) w hi l e on patr ol i n a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea of B uffa l o , p o li ce o ffi cer s C hr i s t opher G er ace and Ti m othyR ooney s a w H e rr i n g i n th e d r i v e w a y o f a h o u s e k n o w n f

o rd ru g a c t i v i ty; ( 2) as the off

i cer s appr oache d H err i ng t o as cert ai n hi s i dent i ty , they s aw H err i ng cr adl i ng a t en - to sixteen- i nch obj ectunderneath hi s cl othi ng w i th one hand w hi l e kee pi ng the other han d n ear hi s w ai stban d; ( 3) H err i ng i gn ored repeat ed d i rect i ves t o st op and show his han ds, i ns t ead part l y turni ng hi s back t o the offi cer s and w al ki ng aw ayi n an eva s i ve manner ; ( 4) one of the offi cer s poi nt ed hi s gun atH err i ng and aga i n comm anded thathe s how hi s hands ; and (5 ) w h e n H e rrin g c o n tin u e d to ig n o re th e o rd e r, th e o f f ice rs h a n d c u f

f e d h im a n d p a tted h im d o w n , d isc o v e rin g th a t th e c o n c e a led o b jec t w a s a lo a d e d .2 2 c a lib e r ri f le b ro k e n d o w n in to tw o p i eces. H e rrin g a ss e rts c lea r e rro r in tw o o f th e s e f in d in g s: (1 ) th a t th e o f f ice rs s a w h im
cr adl i ng the obj ect befor e theyor der ed hi m t o s t op and ( 2) thatH err i ng turned hi s back on the off i cer s and w al ked aw ay . W e ar e notper s uaded. T he di s tr i ctcourtexpr es s l ycr edi t ed G er ace ’ s t es t i m onythathe obs erved H err i ng cr adl i ng an obj ectunderh is jack et befor e he
o rd e re d H e rrin g to sh o w h is h a n d s. W e d e tec t n o e rro r, let a lo n e c lea r e rro r, in th isI n an y ev ent , H err i ng w as nots t opped forFour th A m endmentpurpos es unt i l t he 2 o ff icers p h y sicall yrestrai n ed h im , see U n it ed S tat es v . S im m o n s, 5 6 0 F
. 3 d 9 8 , 1 0 5 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (“A seizu re o cc u rs w h en (1) a p erso n o b ey s a p o li ce o ff ic e r’ s o rde r t o stop o r (2) a per s on thatdoes not s ubm i t t o an offi cer ’ s s how of author i tyi s phy s i cal l yr es tr ai ned”) , and H err i ng does not di s put e thatthe off i cer s s aw the conc eal ed obj ectbefor e then. T hus , even o n H e rrin g ’s v iew o f

th e f a c ts, th e d istric t c o u rt p ro p e rly c o n sid e re d th e c o n c e a led o b jec t in i t s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on det erm i nat i on. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Sw i ndl e, 407 F. 3d 563, 568- 69 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thatunderrul e art i cul at ed i n C al i forni a v. H odar i D
. , 499 U
. S. 621, 6 2 9 (1 9 9 1 ), ev e n ts o c c u rrin g a f ter o r d e r to sto p b u t b e f o re c o m p lian c e a re re lev a n t to rea so n ab le su sp ici o n an aly sis)
. 4 det erm i nat i on . S ee U ni t ed St at es v. L ucky , 569 F. 3d at106 ( not i ng “s peci al defe r ence ” 2

o w ed to f

ind ing s b ase d o n w itn ess c red ibil ity ). A s t o H err i ng’ s evas i ve conduct , G er ace t es t i fi ed thataft eror der i ng H err i ng t o s how h is h a n d s , H e rr in g , in a n “ e v a s iv e m a n n e r[ ,] . . . t u r n e d h a l f h i s b a c k a n d w a lk e d a w a y .” H r ’ g T r . at10. T he di s tr i ctcourtquot ed thi s veryt es t i m onybefor e l i s t i ng H err i ng’ s “eva s i ve
c o n d u c t in tu rn in g h is b a c k o n ” th e o f f ice rs a m o n g th e f

a c ts s u p p o r ti n g d e n ial o f h is
s uppr es s i on m ot i on. W e r ej ectH err i ng’ s ar gum ent thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fai l ur e t o r epea t the w or d “hal f” i n i t s des cr i pt i on r efl ect ed a mi s under s t andi ng orm i s char act er i zat i on of the
re c o rd , le t a lo n e c le a r e rr o r. See U ni t ed St at es v. L ucky , 569 F. 3d at106; U ni t ed St at es v. Iod ice, 52 5 F
. 3 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 5 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). 2. R eas onabl e Sus pi ci on H e rrin g su b m its th a t ev e n o n th e f a c ts f o u n d , the sto p w a s u n law f u l b e c a u se (1 ) h is pr es ence neara house i n w hi ch drug act i vi tyw as s us pect ed w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he
s t o p ; ( 2 ) th e o b

j e c tc o n c e a l e d u n d e rh i s c o a tc o u l d h a v e b e e n “ a n yi n n o c u o u s o r l e g a l i t e m,5

su c h a s a c lar in e t o r p o o l cu e ,” A p p e llan t’ s B r . a t 1 8 -1 9 ; an d (3 ) h is re f u sa l to re sp o n d to orders that he show his han ds w as not p roperl ycon si dered i n the di stri ctcou rt ’s analy si s. T h e a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit. F ir st, w h il e p rese n ce n ea r a su sp ec ted d rug h o u se is n o t eno u g h b yit self to s u p p o rt
a T e rr ys to p , “ o f

f ic e rs a re n o t r e q u ir e d to ig n o re th e re le v a n t c h a ra c te ri s tic s o f a lo c a tio n ,” i ncl udi ng i t s pr es ence i n a “hi gh cr i m e ar ea, ” i n as s es s i ng w hetherthe t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s m ani fes t s a l i kel i hood of cr i m i nal act i vi ty . I l l i noi s v. W ar dl ow , 528 U
. S. 119, 1 2 4 (2 0 0 0 ). S im ilarly , a p e rso n ’s n e rv o u s, e v a s iv e b e h a v io r is re lev a n t to a re a so n a b le
su sp icio n d e ter m in a tio n . S e e id . F u rth e r, as n o ted , H e rrin g w a s n o t sto p p e d f o r F o u rth A m endmentpurpos es unt i l he w as r es tr ai ned. B y that t i m e, the offi cer s s aw thatH err i ng w as
conce al i ng an obj ectunderhi s cl othi ng, and thathe r efus ed t o compl y w i th a r eques tthathe
s how hi s hands , conductthatl entcons i der abl e s uppor tt o the offi cer s ’ s us pi ci on. See U ni t ed St at es v. Si m m ons , 560 F. 3d at 108 ( obs ervi ng that fai l ur e t o compl y w i th i ni t i al or dert o s t op “r ei nfor ced the off

i cer s ’ det erm i nat i on that[def endant ] m ayhave be en enga ged i n cr i m i nal
a c tiv ity” ); U n ite d S ta te s v . S w in d le , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 5 6 9
. T he pos s i bi l i ty that the concea l ed obj ectcoul d have be en i nnocuous di d notpr ecl ude
re a so n a b le s u sp icio n o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity , su c h a s w e a p o n o r d ru g p o ss e ss io n . S e e Illino is
v. W ar dl ow , 528 U
. S. at125 ( “[T] he det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on m us tbe bas ed
on comm ons ens e j udgm ent s and i nfer ence s abouthum an beha vi or . ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es
v. R oger s , 129 F. 3d 76, 79 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ( obs ervi ng that pos s i bi l i ty thatdefe ndant ’ s pocketT he off i cer s ’ deci s i on t o fr i s k H err i ng, notdi r ect l ychal l enged on appeal , al s o w as 3 l aw ful gi ven hi s conce al m entof an obj ect and r efus al t o s how hi s hands
. See U ni t ed St at es v . P a d ill a , 5 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 7 (“ D u rin g a law f u l sto p , if th e in v e stig a tin g o f f ice r h a s re a so n to b e l i e v e th a tth e d e t a i n e d i n d i v i d u a l i s a r me d a n d d a n g e r o u s , h e ma yc o n d u c ta p a t d o wn sea rch fo r co n ce aled w ea p o n s. ”). 6 “ c o u ld h a v e c o n tain e d ‘a n yth in g a t all’” d id n o t p re c lu d e p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e it
c o n tain e d d ru g s (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l)). C o n d u c t “a s c o n sis ten t w ith in n o c e n c e a s w ith g u ilt
m a yf o rm th e b a sis f

o r a n in v e stig a tiv e sto p w h e re th e re is s o m e in d ica tio n o f p o ss ib le illicit act i vi ty . ” U ni t ed St at es v. P ad il la, 5 48 F. 3d 179, 187 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal quot at i on
m a rk s o m itt e d ). H e re , the to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s e sta b lis h e d th a t re a so n a b le 3 pos s i bi l i ty . See Ter r yv. O hi o, 392 U
. S. at22 ( obs ervi ng that“a s er i es of ac t s , eac h of them p erh ap s inn o c e n t i n it self,” ca n , w h en “tak en tog ethe r[,] w arran t[] fu rth er inv esti g ati o n ”),
ac co rd U n it ed S tat es v . S ing h , 4 1 5 F
. 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 5 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). 3. C oncl us i on W e have cons i der ed def endant ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude that th e ya re w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt