FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 39 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cr-0 00 34 -J A-KRS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARTORELL REED, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 2, 2 01 0) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Marto rel l Re edap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forbe in g afel oninkn owi ng po ss es si on of afir earm

an d a m m un it io n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 9 22 (g )(1 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) . Reedarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n t o supp res s the fir earm

fou ndon hi s p ers on du rin g awarran tl es s s to p a ndfri sk . He co nt en ds th atbe cau se th e p ol ic e la ck edreas on ab le su sp ic io n t o ju st ify the st opan d fr is k, h is Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts were v io la te d. Up on rev ie w of t he reco rd

an d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r an d a ffi rm Ree d’s co nv ic ti on . “ Bec au se rul in gs on m ot io ns to supp res s i nv ol ve m ix edqu es ti on s o f fac t an d l aw, we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r, an d i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts de no vo .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Berv al di , 22 6 F .3d 12 56 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). W e co ns tru e al l fa ct s re la te d t o the m ot io n t o supp res s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p arty th atpre va il edbe fo re the di st ric t co urt. Id . Add it io na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt, as fact fin de r, is en ti tl edto subs ta nt ia l de fere nc e in reac hi ng cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns with re sp ectto witne ss tes ti m on y . Uni te d S ta te s v . McPh ee, 3 36 F.3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Thi s i s tru e reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns were m ad e ex pl ic it ly or m erel y

im pl ie d i n i ts rul in g. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Flo y d, 2 81 F.3d 13 46 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ [W] e m ay affi rm th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s on an y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Carab al lo , 59 5 F .3d 12 14 , 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). An o ffi cer d oe s n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t b y co nduc ti ng a “br ie f, warra nt le ss , in ve st ig at ory st op of an i nd iv idua l wh enth e o ffi cer h as a reas on ab le , art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n t ha t cr im in al act iv it y is afo ot .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun te r, 29 1 F.3 d 1 30 2, 1 30 5– 06 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A warran tl es s, i nv es ti ga to ry st op is co ns ti tu ti on al ly perm is si bl e if two co nd it io ns are m et : Fi rs t, the in ve st ig at ory

st op m us t b e la wfu l. Tha t re qu ire m en t i s m et in anon -th e-s tre eten co un te r . . . whenth e p ol ic e o ffi cer r eas on ab ly 2su sp ect s tha t the pe rs on ap pr eh en de d i s co m m it ti ng or h as co m

m it te d a cri m in al off

en se . Seco nd , to pro ceedfro m a st op to a fri sk , th e po li ce o ffi cer m

us t re as on ab ly sus pe ctth atth e p ers on st op pe d i s arm edan d d an ge ro us . Ariz on a v . Jo hn so n, -- - U.S. ----, 1 29 S. Ct. 7 81 , 78 4 (2 00 9) . “An i nv es ti ga to ry st op m us t b e jus ti fie d a t i ts in cep ti on , andit s s co pe m us t b e rea so nabl y

rel at edto th e ci rcu m st an ces th atpe rm it te d t he in tru si on at the ou ts et .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kap pe rm an , 76 4 F .2d78 6, 7 92 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). W arra nt le ss sei zu re o f co nt rab an d dur in g alawf ul pro te ct iv e fri skis co ns ti tu ti on al ly perm is si bl e, if th e

“ co nt ou r orm as s m ak es [th e co nt rab an d’s] id en ti ty im m ed ia te ly app aren t” to th e se arch in g o ffi cer. Mi nn es ot a v . Dick ers on , 50 8 U.S. 3 66 , 37 5– 76 , 11 3 S . Ct. 21 30 , 21 37 (19 93 ).

“ [R]eas on ab le su sp ic io n, l ik e p ro babl e cau se , is no t re ad il y , or e ve n us efu ll y , reduc edto a ne atsetof l eg al rul es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sok ol ow, 4 90 U.S. 1, 7 , 10 9 S . Ct. 1 58 1, 1 58 5 (1 98 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . On a l ev el

of -s us pi ci on sp ectru m , “ reas on ab le su sp ic io n” is “ co ns id erab ly less th anpro of of wro ng do in g b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce,” a ndev enfal ls be lo w th e pr ob ab le cau se st an da rdof “ a fai r pr ob ab il it y th atco nt rab an d o r ev id en ce o f a cri m e wil l b e fo un d.” Id. (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Howev er, “ [t]he of fic er, o f co ur se , m

us t b e ab le to art ic ul at e so m ethi ng m or e th anan‘ in ch oa te an d unpa rti cu la riz edsu sp ic io n o r “ hu nc h.” ’” Id. (quo ti ng Terry v. Oh io , 39 2 U.S. 1 , 27 , 88 S. Ct. 1 86 8, 1 88 3 (1 96 8) ).

3Whe n d et erm in in g wh ethe r rea so nabl e su sp ic io n e xi st s, co urts m us t re vi ew th e “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ” to asc ert ai n wh ethe r th e o ffi cer h ad“ so m e m in im al lev el of o bjec ti ve jus ti fic at io n” to su sp ectleg al wron gd oi ng . Id. (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ [A] seri es of a ct s, ea chof t he m pe rh ap s i nn oc en t i n it se lf . . . tak ento ge th er [c an ] warrant [] furthe r in ve st ig at io n.” Terry, 39 2 U.S. at 22 , 88 S. Ct. at18 80 –8 1. Re as on ab le su sp ic io n a na lysis is no t co nc ern edwith

“ ha rdcert ai nt ie s, b utwith p ro babi li ti es ,” an d l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s m ay rel y on “ in fere nc es an d d educ ti on s tha t m ig htwell elu de anun tra in edpe rs on . . . [b ecau se ] th e ev id en ce thu s co ll ect edm us t b e se enan d wei gh edno t i n t erm s o f li br ary an al y si s b y

sch ol ars .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Corte z, 44 9 U.S. 4 11 , 41 8, 1 01 S. Ct . 69 0, 6 95 (19 81 ). Rathe r, “ th e d et erm in at io n o f rea so nabl e su sp ic io n m us t b e ba se d o n c omm on se ns e jud gm en ts an d i nf eren ces ab ou t h um anbe ha vi or .” Ill in oi s v. Wardl ow, 5 28 U.S. 11 9, 1 25 , 12 0 S . Ct. 6 73 , 67 6 (2 00 0) . In m ak in g t he se co m m on se ns e jud gm en ts , “ [t]he st op pi ng off ic er i s ex pe ct edto ass es s the fact s i n li gh t o f hi s p ro fes si on al ex pe rie nc e an d wh ere t he re i s atlea stm in im al co m m un ic at io ns be twee n o ffi cers , we lo okto th e ‘col le ct iv e kno wled ge ’ of all of fic ers inass es si ng th is de te rm in at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kreim es , 64 9 F .2d 11 85 , 11 89 (5t h C ir. J ul y 19 81 ) (ci ta ti on s o mitte d) . 1 The Supr em e Co urt h as id en ti fie d s ev eral fact or s tha t m ig htaffe ctoff ic ers ’ reas on ab le su sp ic io n c al cu lu s. Fo r in st an ce, “ of fic ers are n otrequi redto ig no re

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981. 4th e rel ev an t ch arac te ris ti cs of alo cat io n i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e ci rcu m st an ces

are s uf fic ie nt ly sus pi ci ou s t o warran t fu rth er i nv es ti ga ti on .” W ard lo w, 52 8 U.S. at 12 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at67 6. Fo r th atreas on , “ th e fac t tha t the st op oc cu rredina ‘hig h cri m e are a’ [is ] am on g t he rel ev an t co nt ex tu al co ns id erat io ns ina Terry an al y si s.” Id . Add it io na ll y , “ ne rv ou s, ev as iv e b eh av io r is a pe rti ne ntfact or inde te rm in in g reas on ab le su sp ic io n.” Id. So to o, a b ul ge inon e’s ou te r cl ot hi ng m ig htin di cat e th e p res en ce o f co nt rab an d o r a weap on . See Pen ns y lv an iav. Mi m m s, 4 34 U.S. 10 6, 1 12 , 98 S. Ct. 3 30 , 33 4 (1 97 7) (“ The bu lg e in th e jack etpe rm it te d t he off ic er to co nc lu de th atMi m

m s was arm edan d t hu s p os eda se rio us an d p res en t d an ge r to th e sa fety of t he off

ic er.”) . At a h eari ng on th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s, Co rp or al Jo hn Parktes ti fie d t ha t h e en co un te redReedina kn ownhi gh cri m e are a an d i ni ti at eda Terry st op aft er witne ss in g fu rti ve “ fig htor f li gh t” ey e m ov em en t, as well as h an d a ndbo dy m ov em en ts an d p os it io ni ng th atin di cat edto th e se ve nt een -y ear v et eran of t he Oran ge Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce tha t Re edwas a tt em pt in g t o c on ceal or d is card so m ethi ng as t he off

ic er ap pr oa ch ed . The d is tri ctco urt cr ed it edPark ’s tes ti m on y an d h el d t ha t the st op was ju st ifi ed . Deferri ng to th is cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n a s we m us t, we ca nn otsay tha t the di st ric t co urt cl earl y erre d i n m ak in g i ts factua l fin di ng s o r th atiterre d i n re ach in g i ts leg al co nc lu si on . Park was abl e to art ic ul at e m or e th anan“ in ch oa te an d u np art ic ul ari zedsu sp ic io n o r ‘hun ch ’ of cri m in al act iv it y ,” an d d idno t v io la te th e Fo urth Am en dm en t wh enhe st op pe d Ree d. Se e Wardl ow, 5 28 U.S. at 1 23 –2 5, 1 20 S. Ct. at67 6– 77 (“ Eve n i n Terry , 5th e co nduc t ju st ifyin g t he st op was a m bi gu ou s an d s us cep ti bl e o f anin no cen t ex pl an at io n. . . . Terry

reco gn iz edth atth e o ffi cers co ul d d et ai n the in di vi du al s t o res ol ve th e am

bi gu it y .” (ci ta ti on s o m itte d) ). 2 Ree d a ls o a rg ue s tha t h is Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts were v io la te d wh enhe was fri sk ed . Spe ci fic al ly, he co nt en ds th atParkne ve r pe rs on al ly revi ewedth e be -o n- th e-l oo ko ut(“ BOLO”) m es sa ge , ou t o f whi chth is in ci de ntaro se . The BOLO m es sa ge in di cat edth ata sh ot gu n a ndanAK-47 co ul d b e fo un d i n acar si mil ar t o t ha t i n wh ic h R eedha d b eena pa ss en ge r. Reedarg ue s tha t i f Parkha d pe rs on al ly revi ewedth e BOLO m es sa ge , hi s s earc h wo ul d h av e b een co ns ti tu ti on al ly unr eas on ab le , bec au se “ no reas on ab le law en fo rcem en t [o ffi cer] wou ldha ve be li ev edth atweap on s o f th is type wou ldbe co nc eal edinth e su sp ect [’] s wai stba nd .” Howev er, thi s ar gu m en t i s u nc on vi nc in g. Th e Fo urth Am en dm en t p erm it s of fic ers to fri sklawf

ul ly sto pp edin di vi du al s i f th ey “ reas on ab ly sus pe ctth atth e pe rs on st op pe d i s arm edan d d an ge ro us .” Jo hn so n, -- - U.S. at -- --, 1 29 S. Ct. at 78 4. As th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edinTerry , whe re n ot hi ng inth e in it ia l s ta ge s o f th e en co un te r se rv es to di sp el [anoff ic er’s] reas on ab le fearforhi s o wn o r ot he rs ’ sa fety , he i s en ti tl edforth e p ro te ct io n o f hi m se lf a ndot he rs inth e are a to co nduc t

On appe al, Reed a

rgues that bec ause Par

k’s suspicion was ba sed solely on an 2 uncorr oborate d and unre liable anony mous tip, the stop and frisk were constitutionally impermissible. Howeve r, this argument fails bec ause, a s demonstrated a bove, seve ral fa ctors g ave rise to Park’s re asonable suspicion. Cf. Florida v. J.L ., 529 U.S. 266, 270, 120 S. C t. 1375, 1378 (2000) ( deemingunjustified a stop and frisk where “the of fice rs’ suspicion that J.L . was car rying a wea pon arose not from any observations of their own but solely from a c all made f rom an unknown location by

an unknown c aller” (empha sis added)) .

6a car efu ll y li m it edsea rch of t he ou te r cl ot hi ng of s uc h p ers on s i n a n at te m ptto di sc ov er weap on s wh ic h m ig htbe us edto ass au lthi m . 39 2 U.S. at30 , 88 S. Ct. at18 84 –8 5. Ap pl y in g t hi s l og ic , th is Co urt h as he ldth at anoff ic er ca n ju st ifi ab ly fris k o f anin di vi du al su sp ect edof c on sp iri ng to di st rib ut e n arco ti cs , m erel y be cau se “ [d ]rug de al in g i s kno wn t o b e ex tre m el y vi ol en t, an d t hi s was a reas on ab le way for th e ag en ts to pro te ctth em se lv es fro m a po ss ib le co nc eal edweap on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Diaz- Liza raza , 98 1 F .2d12 16 , 12 21 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Fo r th e sake of a rg um en t, we ac cep t Re ed ’s po si ti onth atParkcan no t cl ai m ig no ran ce o f th e type o f fi rearm rep orte d i n t he BOLO m es sa ge . In t es ti m on y cred it edby the di st ric t co urt, Pa rkex pl ai ne d t ha t h e fri sk edReedbe cau se of t he su sp ect ’s furti ve be ha vi or ; h is ey e, ha nd , andbo dy m ov em en ts th atin di cat edan in te ntto hi de or d is cardso m ethi ng ; h is pre se nc e in a hi gh cri m e are a; hi s l ou d a nd un co op erat iv e b eh av io r; a nda “pu ffy sh irtin[hi s] wais t l in e are a.” The se fact or s al on e are su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify a fris k. Th e p os si bi li ty tha t Re edha d ju stlef t a c ar i n whi chanAK-47 an d s ho tg un were l oc at edcert ai nl y wou ldno t und erm in e, an d m ay ev ensupp ort, the co nc lu si on th atParkreas on ab ly sus pe ct edReedto be da ng ero us an d a rm edwith s om e so rt o f weap on , eve n i f no t a r ifl e o r sh ot gu n. Inli gh t o f al l o f th es e ci rcu m st an ces an d fo r th e rea so ns setou t ab ov e, th e di st ric t co urt d idno t err whe n i t d en ie d R eed ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. We affirm Ree d’s co nv ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

7