## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 4082 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HRISTO PH ER J. T INN IE , D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 09 C R 50017

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 18, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. M ANI ON, C ircu it Judge. Du r i nga t r a ffi c s t o p, a de pu ty sher i fffri ske d the ca r’ s pass enger, Chri sto pher Ti nnie , an d di sc o ve r ed a g un an d amm uni ti o n. A g r an d j ury i nd i c t e d T i n n i e f o r p o s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m b y a fe l o n. Ti nni e so ug htt o s uppr es s th e g un , a m m uni ti o n, a nd st atem ents he m ade f ol l owing hi s a rr est
. The di str i ct cour t deni ed h is m oti on t o supp re ss and Tinni e then en te re d a c o n d itio n al p lea of gu ilty . Tin n ie n ow ap p ea ls2 N o. 09

- 4082 f r o m t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s d eni alo fh i s mo t i o n t o s up p r e s s . We a ffi r m.

I. On Fri day, J anuary30 , 2009, W i nnebago County She riff D ep ut ies Den nis H il l an d Brad K aiser w ere w or ki ng a 4: 00 p. m . - 4: 00 a. m . shi ft, patr ol l i ng in a “weed and see d a r e a ” o fR o c k f o r d, I l l i no i s . A “ we e d a nd s eed ar ea ” is an are a d es ign at ed by st at e a n d l o c a l offic ials ba se d o n a hi g h c r i m e r at e an d g an g, dr ug , a nd g un acti vi ty. Kais erwas part ofa Speci alF oc u s U ni t which f o c u s e d o n a r e a s wi th h i g h e r c r i me t e n d e n c i e s . At ar ound 11: 30 that eve ni ng, the offi cer s obser ved a black H y unda i S o na ta wi tha mass o fai r fr es he ne r s ha ng i ng f ro m i ts re ar vi ew m i rr or . That n or m al l y m i ght no t at tr ac t la w en for c em en t’s at te n tio n, bu t t h e s tr at eg y in a “w ee d and see d are a” i s pro acti ve pol i ci ng thr ough i nc r ea se d t r affi c en f o r ce m en t, a nd the ha ng i nga ir f r es hener s co nsti tuted an “ obs tr ucti ve vi ew ” j usti fyi ng a st o p. Be f o r e th e o ffi ce r s st o pped the c ar, tho ug h, the dri verabr up tl y turned l eft a nd then i nto a dri vew ay. The offi cer s t est i fi ed that they bel i ev ed t he dri verwas a t t e mpt i ngt o a v o i d b e i ngs t o pp e d. Aft erst o ppi ngthe v eh i cl e, the o ffi ce r s appr o ac he d the car . A s he w al ked up to the pass engersi de, Kais er noti ced Ti nnie fi dgeti ng l eft t o ri ght a nd bac k a n d f or th i n the pa ss en g er ’ s se at
. W hi l e H i l l s po k e wi ththe d riv er , K ais er as ke d T in n i e fo r h is id en tific at ion . Tin n ie re sponded thathe di dn ’ t hav e a l i cense bu t di d have an i denti fi cati on ca rd. B u t then wh en Kais eras ked f orN o. 09

- 4082 3 that, Ti nnie m er el y m ove d his hands dow n the f ro nt o f hi s c o a t a n d p i n c h e d h i s j e a n s ( h e d i d n o t a c t u al l y put hi s hands i nsi de hi s c oa t or pants pocket s t o check) b e f o r e s a y i ngh e di d n o th a v e a n i de nt i f i cat i o n c a r d. K ais er co m m en te d th at T in n ie h ad n ev er ac tu ally ch ec k ed hi s po ck et s f o r hi s i den ti fi ca ti o n car d, b ut Tinni e m er el y r esponded that “he di dn ’ t have h is ID on hi m . ” The o ffi certhen ask ed the passenge r f orhi s nam e, bi rth date, and age

. Ti nnie i denti fi ed him sel fas Chri sto
p h er T i n n i e , gav e a birt h d at e o f Ju n e 1 6, 19 81 , an d to ld th e o ffice r th at h e w as 28 . B u t a s K ais er im m ed iat ely re al i zed, “with the d at e ofbi rth that he had gi ven m e, he c o ul d ha ve o nl y b ee n 2 7 atthe t i m e. ” An d a t th e su p p re ss ion h ea rin g, K ais er ex p lain ed th at, in h is e x p er ience, i nd i vi du al s wh o ar e unabl e t o provi de the cor re ct ag e t o m at c h th e i r b irt h d at e a re lyin g e ith er ab ou t t h eir na m e o r the i r da te o fb i r th

. A t this p oin t, K ai serto l d Tinni e t o exi t the car

. Kais er l at ert es ti fi ed that at the t i m e he a sk ed Ti nni e to g eto ut of t h e c ar h e h ad alre ad y d ec id ed t o f ris k h im an d in f ac t th athe fr i sk s an y o ne he a sk s to e xit a ve hi cl e dur i ng a t ra ffi c st op. A fterTi nnie ex ite d the car, Kais er i nfo rm ed Tinni e he “w as going to p at h i m dow n f or offic er sa fet y” an d as ke d “h i m i fh e h ad an yt h in g on h im th at h e sh ou ld n ’t h av e as far a s w ea p on s o r d ru gs .” T in n ie di dn ’t r es po nd. Kai se r s l i g ht l y r eph r as ed th e que st i o n, as k i ngTi nni e i fhe ha d a ny w ea po ns , g uns , o r a ny th i ng that w oul d poke Kai se r’s hand. A gai n, Ti nnie di d not an sw er. Bu t w he n K aise r qu estione d Tinn ie a th ird tim e, as ki ng so l el y whether he had any drugs, “Ti nn ie i m m edi ate l y s ai d ‘no

. ’ ” At thi s poin t, K ai serpro ceeded4 N o. 09

- 4082
to fr i skTi nni e an d di sc overed a g un a nd a maga zine w i th thre e ro und s of am m unit i on. The offi cer s a rr est ed Tinni e, and aftera sea rch ofthe carr eve al ed no o ther wea po ns o r dr ug s, the y g av e th e dr i ve r a war ni ng about the obstr ucted vi ew and al l owed herto l eave . The offi cer s t ra ns p or ted Ti nnie to the W i nnebago C ou n ty C rim in al Ju s t i c e C en te r w h er e, ac c or d in g t o H ill, he M i ra nd i zed Ti nnie
. Ti nnie then vol untari l y pr ovi ded a h an d w rit te n a n d in itial ed sta tem ent a cknow ledgi ng hi s pos ses si on o fthe fi re ar m . A gr and j ury l ate r i nd i cted Ti nnie forposs ess i on o fa fi re ar m by a fel on i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1). T i nnie m ove d to supp re ss th e gun, am m unit i on, and hi s wri tte n sta tem en t. H e ar g ue d the fr i skwas unc o ns ti tu ti o na l a nd the wri tte n sta tem ent was the frui t of th e i l l ega l searc h an d a ls o obtained w ithou t the ben efi t of a M i r anda warni ng. Th e d istri ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on to supp re ss, co ncl ud i ng r eas onabl e s uspici on j usti fi ed f r i s k i ngT i nn i e a nd tha t Ti nn i e h a d in f a c tr e c e i v e d a M i r anda warni ng. Ti nnie then enter ed a c ondit i onalpl ea ofgui l ty, r es er vi ng the r i ght t o appeal the denia l o f hi s mo t i o n t o s up pr e s s a nd the s e nt e nc e i mpo s e d. The di st r i ctc o ur t th ens en te nc ed Ti nni e to 8 4 m o nths i n pri son. Ti nnie appeal s.

II. On app eal, Ti nnie cla im s that the di str i ct c ourter re d in d en yin g h is m ot ion to su p p re ss be c au se rea so n ab le su sp icio n d id n otj u st ify th e fris k a n d th er ef o r e th e fru itN o. 09

- 4082 5

Tinn ie d oes not chal le nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s concl usi on that 1 h e r eceiv ed his M i ra nda warni ngs pr i or t o pr ovi di ng his w ritten sta t e m en t. T his issue is thu s no t on ap p eal. Tin nie al s o doe s n ot c hal l en ge hi s s en t en c e on appe al, al thoughhe had res erved the ri ght to do s o in hi s conditi onal plea. o fthe i l l eg als ea r ch( i. e. , the g un, a m m uni ti o n, a nd h i s l a t e r i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e me n t ) w a s i n a d mi s s ib l e . We 1 r e v i e w deno vo the di stric t c ourt ’ s l ega l deter m i nati on o f the c onst i tuti onal i ty ofa f ri sk an d i ts fi nd i ngs o ff act f o r c l ea r er ro r. U nite d State s v. O gles by, 5 9 7F
. 3 d 8 9 1 , 8 93 (7th C ir. 2010). Duringa v al i d t r affi c st o p, a n o ffi ce r may o r derthe dr i ve r a nd pas se ng er s o utofthe ve hi cl e wi th o utv i o l at i ng th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t. P e n n s y l v a n i a v . Mi mms , 434 U
. S. 1 06 , 112 n .6 (19 77 ); M aryl and v. Wi l s on , 5 1 9 U. S

. 4 0 8 , 41 2 ( 19 97 )

. The o ffi ce r s m ay al so fr i skthe dr i ve r a nd a ny passeng er s upon r eas onabl e s uspici on that they m ay b e a rm ed an d d an ge ro u s. Arizona v. Johns on , 12 9 S

. Ct. 78 1, 78 7 (2 00 9). W h et h er an offic er h as a re a so n ab le su sp icio n to su p p or t s u c h a fris k “ i s a fac t-s p ec ific i nquir y that l oo ks at the ‘ tot al i ty of the c i rcum sta nces’ i n light ofco m m on s ense and practi cal i ty. ” U nited Sta tes v. Rob i ns on , 615 F.3d 804 , 807-08 (7th C ir. 2010). I n d e t e rm i ni ngwhethe r an o ffi ce r ha d r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n, cour ts consi de r “t h e ci rcum sta nces known to the offi cer atthe t i m e o fthe s to p, i nc l udi ngthe e xpe r i ence o fthe offi cera n d the be havi orand char acte ri sti cs o fthe suspect. ” U nited Sta tes v. La w shea , 461 F.3d 8 5 7, 8 5 9 (7th C ir. 2006 )

. The ti m e a nd the l oca ti on o f t h e stop a re al so6 N o. 09

- 4082

r e l ev an t t o t h e re as on ab le s u sp icio n inq u iry
. O gles by, 59 7 F. 3d at 893. I n thi s ca se , t h e tota l i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces j usti fi ed f r i sk i ngTi nni e. The s to p oc cu rred l at e o n a F r i dayni g ht i n a h i g h- c r i me ne i g hb o r ho o d. And Ka i s e r t e s t i f i ed atthe s up pr e s s i o n he a r i ngtha tthe dr i v e wa y i nto w hi ch Ti nnie had pull ed w as “dim l y l i t j ust fro m r oad l i ghti ng. ” See, e. g., O gles by, 59 7 F
. 3d at 893 ( hol ding that th e t ot alit y of t h e c irc u m st an c es j u st ified a fris k, in part, bec ause i t “ occur re d at ni ght in a l oca ti on t h at was known to the offi cer s t o be a hi gh- cri m e are a pl agued by d rug traffi cki ng and gun viol en ce”). K aiser w as p art ofa Sp ec ial Foc us U ni t cha rg ed w i th patr ol l i ng hi gher cr i m e ar ea s an d, a s th e di stri ct co ur t f o und, was thus f a m iliar w ith th e ris k of g u n p os se ss ion in t h at are a. See U nited Sta tes v. La w shea , 461 F. 3d 857, 859 ( 7th Cir. 20 06) ( hol din g th at the experi ence ofthe offi ceri s a f acto r consi dered i n j ud gi ng wh etherr eas onabl e s uspici on j us t i fi e s a fr i s k )

. A s the di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o f o un d, T in n ie a c te d su sp icio u sly by m ov in g a r ou n d n er vo u sly as th e o ffice rs ap p r o a c h ed th e c ar . See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. Brown, 2 7 3 F
. 3 d 74 7, 74 8

- 4 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( fi ndi ng th at th e totality of the facts, inc lu d in g the de fend an t’s

“ mo v e me n t s i n th e c a r, ” j u s t i fi e d “ a l i mi t e d p a t d o wn forweapons”)

. Then, afterst ati ng he had an i denti fi cati on ca rd, Ti nnie to l d K ai ser( w i thout checking hi s pock

et s) t h at h e d id n oth av e t h e id en ti f ica tio n ca rd

. See, e.g., Cad y v . She ahan , 46 7 F
. 3d 1057, 10 61- 62 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( noti ng tha t e vasi ve re sponses t o p oli ce ques ti ons can hel p supp or t r eas onabl e s uspici on)

. Ti nnie al so sta tedN o. 09

- 4082 7 he was 28 and K ai seri m m edi ate l y per cei ved that“with the date o fbi rth that he had gi ven m e, he c oul d have onl y b een 2 7 a t th e t i m e. ” Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. M arrocc o , 5 78 F
. 3d 62 7, 6 33

- 34 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( co nc l udi ng that i nconsi ste nt answ er s to the offi cer ’ s questi ons w as a f acto r supp or ti ng r eas onabl e s uspici on that a sui tcas e c on ta in ed d ru gs ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 87F. 3d 909, 912 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( sta ti ng that defendant’s co ntra
dict or y a ns we r s t o s i mpl e que s t i o ns wa s a f a c t o r s up port i ng r eas onabl e s uspici on j usti fyi ng dete nti on o fdefenda n t’s sui tcas e. ) A nd befor e fri sking Ti nnie , Kais er as k ed hi m whethe r he ha d a ny wea po ns o r d r ug s an d Tinni e di d not r espond. Kais err ephrase d the quest i on s l i g h t l y, a s k i n gT i n n i e “ i fh e h a d a n y w e a p o n s o n h i m, an y g u n s, or an yt h in g t h at w ou l d p o k e m y h an d s.” A gai n, Ti nnie di d not r espond , but w hen K ai serthen as ke d if T in n i e h a d an y d ru gs on h im , Tin n ie im m ed iately said n o. Cou p led w ith t h e e arli er sus p ici ou s circumst ances, Ti nni e’ s si l en ce whent wi ce a sk ed i fhe ha d a ny wea po ns , b uthi s i m m edi at e den i alo fpo ss es sing drugs, pro vid ed Kais erwith r eas onabl e s uspici on that Tinni e was ar m ed and thus j usti fi ed the f ri sk. I t i s t rue th at K ai serte sti fi ed that w hen he a ske d Tinni e t o ste p out o fthe car, he h ad a lre ad y deci ded to f r i s kh i m. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tb e l i e v e d th e h i g h

- c r i me ne i g hb o r ho o d a nd the l at en es s o fthe ho ur, a l o ng wi th Ti nn i e ’ s s us pi c i o us mo v e men ta s the o ffi c e r s a pproa ched th e c ar , hi s s tr ange behavi orwh en as ked f or hi s i den tifi ca ti o n, a nd the i nc o ns i st en t dat e o fb i r tha nd age were enough t o j usti fy the fr isk . That m ay w el lbe,8 N o. 09

- 4082 gi ven that we j ud ge the to ta li ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces “i n l i ght o fco m m on s ense and practi cal i ty. ” Robins on , 615 F. 3d at 807- 08. Com m on s ense tel l s us that an o ffi cer f aced with Tinni e’ s s uspici ous b ehavio r d uri ng a l ate
n igh t s to p i n a h igh -c rim e n eig hb or h oo d w ou ld find it to tal l y s en sibl e to pe r f o r m a fr i skt o pr o te cthi m se l fa nd h is p ar tn er . See, e. g., O g lesb y, 5 97F
. 3d at8 93 ( ho l di ng f ri sk j usti fi ed w here i t “ occur re d at n igh t in a l oca ti on that w as known to the offi cer s t o b e a hi gh- cri m e a re a p lagued by d rug traffi cking an d gu n viol en ce” an d w he re de fe nd a nt mov e d a wa y fr o m the c r o wd a s o ffi cer s a pp roach ed and drop p ed his han d to his pan ts p ocket ). Bu t we need notr esto n thos e ci rcum sta nces beca use K aise r t e s tified at th e sup p ression h earing th at before he fri ske d Tinni e, he ha d aske d Ti nnie wh etherhe ha d an y w ea p on s o r d ru gs . A n d as rec ou n te d a b ov e, T in n ie did notr espond to the re peated quest i ons about w eapons but im m edi ate l y r esponded “no” w hen ask ed ab ou t d ru gs . Th e S u p re m e C ou rth as m ad e c lea r th at in j ud gi ng the consti tuti onal i ty ofa sea rch orse i zure , co urts m u s t loo k a t t h e fa c ts ob j ec tiv ely

. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Whre n, 517 U

. S . 806, 812-13 (1996) ( coll ectin g cases ). Th us , “[i ]t i s i mpo r t a nt t o r e memb e r that w e a re no t lim ited to wh at th e stop p ing o ff ice r says or t o e vi de nc eof his s ubj e ct i ve r a t i o n a le; r ather, we l oo k t o the r eco rd as a w hol e t o det er m i ne whatf acts w er e k no wn to the o ffi ce r a nd th enc o ns i d er w h e t h e ra re a s o n a b l eo f f i c e ri n t h o s ec i r c u mstan ces would have been suspi ci ous. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br own , 23 2 F
. 3d 589, 59 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d; em phasi s add ed). Thus, it is i rrelevant that K aiser dec ided to frisk Tinn ie beforeN o. 09

- 4082 9

T i n nie a rg u es tha t be cau se K aiser ro u tinely frisks o ccu p an ts 2 w hom he has direc ted t o exi t the vehicl es , K ais er e ngag es in u nc on stitutio na l au tom atic frisks. T he re are tw o flaw s w ith thi s ar gum en t : Fi rs t, as j us tno t ed, the r ea s on abl e s us pi c i on ana l ys i s i s anobj ec t i ve one

— so K aiser’s su b jectiv e inten t is i rrelev ant
. Se c ond, Kai s erdi d nott es t i fy thathe r out i ne l y a s ks e ve r yo ne he s t op s t o e x i tthe ve hi c l e . Th us , i tm a y we l l be tha t K aiser o n ly d irects occ u p an ts to exit the sto p p ed v eh icle ifthe re i s alr eady reas onab le s uspici on to be lie ve they are arm ed an d d an g ero u s. T he d issent find s this po ssibility hig hly i m pro babl e but, as the di s sent re c ogni ze s , m any r out i ne traffic stop s occu r “w hile th e d riv ers an d p assen g ers rem ain i ns i de the ve hi c l e ( a nd are of t e n war ne d nott o t ry t o e xi tthe vehicl e)

. ” D is sen t a t 1 4 n. 3. There i s nothing t o indicat e that K ais er handles tr affic s tops any diff erent ly than the typ ic al officer, i. e., in m ost case s d irectin g d r i v ers an d p assen g ers to rem ain insid e the v eh icle. B u t if, in fact, there w as s o m e ev idenc e thatKai s erha s a hi ghe r ra t e ofe xi t
- re que s t s an d f ri s ks thanthe typi c al of fi c er, itli ke l y st em s fro m the m or e dange ro us en v iron m en t he faces in w or k ing the 4 p .m .- 4 a.m
. shift as a me mb e r o fth e S p e c i a l F o c u s U n i t, p a t r o l l i n g h i g h

- c r i me ne i ghbo rh oo ds

. Abs en ts om e s uppor ti n the r ec or d t o the contrar y, w e should no t i m ply thatK ais er r egularl y engages in u nc on stitutio na l con d u ct. di r ec ting hi m to ex i t th e ca r . S i m i l ar l y, i t i s al so i r r el ev an t that K ai serte stifi ed thathe fri sks anyo ne he ask s t o ste p ou t o f a ve h i c l e d u r i n g a tra ffic s to p . T h e q u es tio n is 2 ra th er w h et h er giv en all of th e f a c t s k n ow n to K ais er , a re aso nabl e o ffi cerw ou l d have be l i eve d the fri sk w as j usti fi ed. Giv en ev er ythi ng tha t t oo k pl ace pri orto10 N o. 09

- 4082

Th e di s s e nta s s e r t s tha tbe c a us e “ [ t ] he fr i s k had b eg unby 3 the tim e Deput y Kai s eras ke d Ti nni e whethe r he ha d any w eapons or drugs, ” his res pon se s are i rrel evant to the Terry analysi s and s hould be disreg a rd ed. D is se nt at24. H ow ever, the r e c or d mak e s c l e a r tha tKa i s e r a s ke d T i nn i e w hether he h ad a ny w ea pons or drug s be f or e the fri s k ha d begun ; Kai s ert es t i fi ed a tthe suppr es s i on he ar i ng th atthi s que s t i oni ng t ook pl ac e bef or e he “t ouc he d [ Ti nni e] , be f or e any i nt era c t i on with h i s body t ook pl ac e. ” A nd the di s t ri c tc our tf ound

— and thatfi ndi ng was no tc l ea rl y e rr one ous

— that thi s que s t i oni ng oc c ur re d bef or e Kai s erc onduc t ed the fri s k. W hi l e the re m ay wel l be othe r c as es i n whic h o ffi c er s e nga ge 4 i n un re as onabl y i nt ru s i ve law e nf or c em en tpr ac t i c es , Dis s en t at28 , thi s i s no tthatc ase. Rathe r, thi s c as e i l l us t ra t es ho w p ro a c tiv e p olicin g , w ithin con stitutio na l lim its, succe ssfully “w eed s” d a n g ero u s crim ina ls fro m the street w hile prov iding l aw - abiding cit ize ns the protec ti on they deser ve. th e fr i sk, as w ell as th e t im e a n d loc at ion of th e s to p , a

3 re aso nabl e o ffi cerco uld co ncl ud e that there w as re asonab l e s uspic ion thatTi nnie was ar m ed and that a fri sk w as necess ar y t o ass ure th e o ffi cer s’ sa fety
. A ccor dingl y, the f ri sk w as const i tuti onal and the d istri ct cour t pr op er l y deni ed Tinni e’ s m oti on t o supp re ss. 4 W e A FFIRM .N o. 09

- 4082 11 H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, diss en ti ng. The er osi on o f Fo u rt hA m en d m en t lib er tie s c om e s n otin d ra m at ic l eaps b ut i n sm all st eps, i n deci si ons that see m “f actbound,” cas e- specific, and al m ostr outi ne atfi rs t bl ush. Take n to gether, tho ugh, the se ste ps can hav e b r o ade r i mpl i c a t i o n s f o r th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o fl a wab i di ngc i ti ze ns . Is ee thi s ca se a s anunfo r tu na te e xam p le of t h is p ro c es s. T h e im m ed iat e re su lt h er e is the r em ova l o fan a rm ed fel on fro m the st re et s of R oc kfo rd , Il lin ois for s ev en ye ar s. B u t t h e c ou rt ’s d ec isi o n to sa nc ti o n Deputy Kai se r ’ s f r i sk o fde fen dan t Tinni e co m es too cl ose to al l owing pol i ce o ffi cer s t o f ri sk vi rtual l y a t wil l any dri vero r passenge r pu l l ed o v e r i n a h i g h- c r i me a r e a . Ib e l i e v e the F o ur th Am e nd

m ent r equi re s a di fferent b al ance b etween the i nter est s o fe ffi ci en t l aw e nf o r ce m en t an d the c o ns titut i o na l r i g ht aga i nst unre aso nabl e s ear ches, so Ir espect full y di sse nt. Before tur ni ngt o the fr i ski ts el f, l et ’ s co ns i derthe se r i es o fe ve nt s th atl ed to tha t fr i sk, b eg i nni ngwi ththe ac t u a l stop of th e car in w hich Tinn ie w as a p assen ger. The sta ted r eas on f or t h e stop

— t o a ddr e s s a wi nd

sh ie l d o bs cur ed bya i r fr es he ne r s ha ng i ngfr o m the rearvi ew m i rr or

— was pur e pr et ex t, ofc o ur se . No o ne bel i eve s that Dep u ty K ai serand hi s par tnercar ed about t h e obscur ed w i nd shi el d fo r i ts own sa ke. D ep ut y K a is e r c ha racterized this stop as the w ork of a proa cti ve pol i cem an i m ple m enti ng the federa l l y- fund ed “Wee d a n d S e e d ” p r o g r a m a tn i g h ti n a d e s i g n a t e d hi g h-12 N o. 09

- 4082

The “W eed and Seed ” p rogram is a U
. S. D epartm ent of J usti ce 1 i ni t i at i ve des i gne d t o “ re duce the i m pac tofvi ol en t c rim e on com m u nities; pro v id e p rev en tion, inter v en tion , a n d treatm en t serv ices f or sub sta n c e a b u se an d oth er soc ial p ro b lem s; and r evital i ze c om m uni t i es thr ough i m pro ved h ous i ng and econom i c deve l opm en t ” by “s t re s s [ i ng] c ol l abor at i on, c oor di nat ion , an d co m m uni t y par t i c i pat i on. ” U. S. Depar t m en t o f Ju sti ce , Wee d & Seed Im pl ement at i on M anual, at 1 (2 0 0 5 ). cri m e a re a. 1 The offi cer s too k advantage of the f act that th e F ourth A m endm ent a l l ows prete xtual tr affi c st ops s o l ong as th ey are ba se d u p on an ob se rv ed vio lat ion of a t ra ffic l aw . S ee Whren v. U nited Sta tes , 5 1 7U. S

. 8 0 6 , 8 1 0 ( 1 9 9 6 )

. As th i s case shows, thi s pri nci ple i s pract i cal l y l i m i tl es s in appli cati on

— onl y the m ostunobse rv ant pol i ce o ffi cer w ou ld be u n ab le t o s p otatle a s t o n e t ra ffic v iola tio n in sh or t o rder

. S ee Davi d H ar ri s, “Dri vi ng Whi l eBla ck ” an d All O t he r Traf

f i c O f f e ns e : The Sup r e m e Court an d P r e t ext ual Traf f i c St ops , 87J
. Cri m . L. & Cri m i nol ogy54 4, 54 5, 55 8- 59 (19 97 ) (“In th e m os t l i t e r a l se n se , no d riv er ca n av oid vi ol ati ng so m e t ra ffi c l aw duri ng a shor t d ri ve, ev en wi th the mo s tc a r e fula t t e nt i o n” ; “wi th the t r a ffi c c o de in han d , any of fi cer can stop any d river any tim e”); B arb ar a C . Salk en , The G ene ral Warrant of the Tw ent ie th C entu ry? A Fo urth A m end m ent So lutio n to U nc he ck ed D iscre t i on t o Ar r e s tf

orTr af f i c O f f enses , 6 2 Tem p. L. Rev. 22 1, 223 ( 1989 ) ( “A l m ostev er y Am er i can adul t dri ves; hence th e p o o l o fp o t e n t i a l a r r e s t e e s i s e n o r mo u s . T h e i n n u mer abl e r ule s a nd r egul ati ons gov erni ng ve hi cul artr avel ma k e i tdi f f i c u l tn o tt o v i o l a t e o n e o fth e m a to n e t i meN o. 09

- 4082 13

Thi s obs er vat i on l ong pre dat es the dec i s i on i n Whre n . W hen 2 h e w a s A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , th e fu t u r e J u s t i c e J a c k s o n s a i d : “ We know thatno l oc al pol i c e f or c e c an s t ri ctly enf or c e the t ra ffi c l aws , or i twoul d a rr es tha l fthe dri vi ng po pul at i on on a n y g iv en m o rn in g .” R . Jac k so n, The Fed eralP rosecutor, A dd res s D eli v ered at th e S ec on d A n n u al C on feren ce of U n ited S t a tes A tt or neys , A pri l 1, 1940 , quot ed i n M or riso n v. Ol so n , 487 U.S

. 654, 7 2 7 -2 8 (19 8 8 ) (Sc a lia , J. , d iss en tin g ). or anoth er. ” (f ootn ote om itted ))

. A s a pra c t ica l m atter, 2 Whren allow s la w en for c em en t o ffice rs to co n d u c t t ra ffic st op s ne ar ly at w i l l . Se e, e . g. , Peop l ev. Rob i ns on , 76 7 N. E
. 2 d 6 3 8 , 6 6 0 ( N. Y

. 2 0 0 1 ) ( L e v i n e , J
. , di s s e n t i n g ) ( “ [ A] per se ve r i ngpo l i ce o ffi ce r, a r m ed o nl y wi tha c o py o fthe [ tr affi c co de] and b en t on s ubj ecting a vehi cl e a nd i ts oc c u p an ts to an u nju s t i fied inv es tig at ive st op , w ill ult im at ely be ab le t o a c c om p lish t h at ob j ec tiv e v irt u ally at will

. ”). Once the c arwas st op ped, Dep uty Kai serbeg an questi o ni ng Ti nni e, a t fi r sts uppo se dl y t o de te r m i ne hi s i den

ti ty
. Aga i n, no o ne s er i o us l y b el i ev es tha t th i s was the pr i m ar y pur po se of the que st i o ni ng

— Dep uty Kai ser w as al m ostcer tai nl y l ooki ng f ora re aso n to se ar ch Tinni e, the car, o r both. Other w i se, wh y would Deputy Kai se rha ve r ea ct ed as he di d t o Ti nni e’ s r o undi ngup ofh i s a g e fr o m 2 7y e a r s a nd 7mo nths t o 2 8 y e a r s? Based on Ti nnie ’ s a nsw er s t o thos e qu es tions, Deputy K aiser ordered Tinn ie out o f t h e car. O f cou rse, T inn ie’ s ac tu ala ns wer s to De puty Kai se r ’ s i ni ti alque st i o ns w er e i rr ele va nt, gi ven that Deputy Kai serco uld, as a m at te r o fc o ur se, o r derTi nni e o uto fthe c arwi th o uta ny14 N o. 09

- 4082

D eputy K ais er had n o real n eed to ord er Tinnie ou t of the car, 3 of c ou rse. M an y r ou tine traffic stop s, p articu larly tho se actu ally c ar ri ed o utf or the i r s t at ed pur pos es , pr oc ee d whil e the driver s a n d p ass engers rem ain i nsi de the vehic le ( and are oft e n war ne d n ot to tr y to ex it t h e v eh ic le ). suspi c ion beyond that w hi ch j usti fi ed the i ni ti alst op. S ee M aryl and v. Wi l s on , 5 1 9 U. S

. 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( d e s c r ib i ng th is add iti ona l intru sion as “m inim al”). 3 By thi s p o i nt, De pu t y Ka i s e rt e sti f i ed, h e h a d a l r e a dy deci ded thathe was g oi ng to fri sk Tinni e. In fact, Deputy K ai ser ’ s s tandard practi ce i s t o f ri sk every pe r so n h e or ders out ofa vehi cl e du ri ng a tr affi c st op

— a pra cti ce fl a t l y c o nt r a r y t o Terry v. O hio , 392 U
. S. 1, 27 (1968), an d i ts prog eny, wh i ch r equi re r eas ona b le suspic i on that a suspect i s a rm ed and dangero us. The f act that Depu ty K ai serappli ed an unconst i tuti onalpra c tice i n thi s ca se i s i rr el evanti fhe in f act had a r eas onabl e s uspici on th a t T i n n i e wa s a r me d a n d d a n g e r o u s , h o we v e r, s o we m ust turn a bl i nd ey e t o Dep ut y K aise r’ s g ener alprac tic e, d e s p i te its sim ilar ity to p ra c tic es u n d er th e c olo n ialer a g ener alwarra n ts autho ri zi ng se ar ches ofany “suspec te d pe r so ns ” o r “ su sp ici ous pl ac es . ” S ee Tho m as Y. D av ies , Rec ove r i ng t he O r igi nal Fou r t h A m endmen t, 98 M ich. L. R ev. 547, 558 n. 12 ( 1999 ). W hen vi ew ed i n i sol ati on, ea ch i nd i vi du alas pect o f Dep uty K ais er ’ s be havi orbefor e he sta rt ed the f ri sk that disc ove re d the handgun w as either a rguabl y r easo n able orco nsti tuti onal l y i rr el evant
. “[ T]he centr al i nqui r y unde r the F o ur thAm en dm en t, ” ho wev er, i s “theN o. 09

- 4082 15

r ea so nabl en es s i n all th e c ir c um stan ces of the p arti cul argo ver nm entali nvasi on o fa ci ti zen’ s perso nal secur i ty, ” Terry, 3 92 U
. S

. a t 19 ( emphas i s adde d)

. The iss u e be c om es w h et h er D ep u ty K ais er ’s frisk o fT in n ie w as obj ecti vel y r eas onab le i n l i ght o fthe f act that the fri sk w as conducted onl y a fterDeputy Kais er had lev er ag ed a p re te x tu al s to p fo r a n ins ign ifica n t t ra ffic offense i nto an excuse to r em ove Ti nnie fro m the vehi cl e. W he n tak en toge t h e r, De p ut y K aiser’s actions ap art f ro m th e frisk i tse l fal re ady be ara str i ki ng r ese m bl ance to the pr acti ces perm i tted i n col oni alti m es und er “the g en er alwar r an t, the pr ac ti ce upb r ai ded bythe co l o ni st s be ca us e i t al l o wed Br i ti shso ldi er s to c o nf ro nt any one they fel t l i ke i n vesti gat i ng f orse dit i on ortr affi cki ng i n uncustom ed go od s.” Chri sto pher Slo b og in, Justic e G insbu rg’s G rad ua lism in C rim ina l P roc edu re, 7 0 O h io St

. L. J
. 86 7, 886 ( 2009 ) ; se e a l so Davi es, 98 M i ch

. L. R e v . a t5 5 8 & n . 1 2 ( n o t i n gth a tth e wa r r an t cl ause ofthe Four th A m endm ent was f orthe pu rpos e o f p rohibitin g gene ral searc he s base d on inad eq ua te inform at ion ); D av id A . H a r ris , Car Wars : TheFo ur t h Am e ndm ent ’s D e at h on t heH ighway, 6 6 Ge o . Was h. L. R e v . 55 6, 574 ( 1998 ) ( noti ng tha t pos t- Whren F o ur thAm en dm en t j ur i s pr ud e nc e e ffe c t i v e l y a l l o ws l a w enfo r c e men t“ t o do ex ac tly whati s o th er wi se fo rbi dden : a cto n n o th i ng m o r e th an a hunc h” )

. The effec ts th atsuc h lo ng - co ndemned pr ac ti ce s ha ve o n l aw - ab i di ngc i ti ze ns

— fear, hu m il iation, ange r, and a grow ing cyn ici sm tow ard l aw enf or cem ent in gene ra l

— should co m e a s no sur pri se. Se e D av id A . H ar ris , The St or i e s , th eSt at i s t i cs, an d the L a w : Why “D rivin g Whil e B la ck ” M a tters , 8 4 Mi nn . L. R e v.16 N o. 09

- 4082 265 ( 1999 ) ( draw i ng on i nter vi ew s an d st ati sti cal an alyses of p oli ce p ractices). Turningto the fr isk i tse l f, we m ust r eco gni ze that a f ri sk i s m ostcer tai nl y no t a m i nori ntrusi on o n pri vacy . As the S upr eme Co urt e xpl aine d i n Terry, wh i ch fi rs t author i zed warra ntl ess st op- and-fri sks o n l ess than pr o babl e ca us e ( an d s ho r tly a fte r so m e o fthe mos t vi o l en t urban r i ots i n A m er i can h i sto ryi n 196 7 a nd 19 68) , a f ri sk “i s a s e r i o u s i n t r u s i o n u p o n th e s a n c t i t y o fth e p e r s o n, whi chmay i nfli ctg r ea t i ndi g ni tya nd a r o us e st r o ng re sentm ent. ” 3 92 U
. S. at17; se e i d. a t1 7n . 1 3 ( d e sc r i bi ng a fr i s ka s a “ ‘ th o r o u g h s e a r c h

. . . o f[ a n i n d i v i d u a l ’ s ] a r ms a nd a r mpi t s , wa i s t l i ne a nd b a c k, the g r o i n a nd ar ea a b o u tth e t e s t i c l e s , a n d e n t i r e s u r f a c e o fth e l e g s d o wn to the fee t’ ”) , quo ting Pri ar& M ar ti n , S e a r ch ing an d D isarm in g Crim inals , 45 J
. Cri m . L. Cri m i nol ogy& Pol i ce Sci. 481 (1954). Ter ry au th or ize d frisk s a s a rea so n ab le a n d p ra g m at ic re sp on se to har d rea l i ti es ofo ur nat i on’ s ci ty str eet s. Bu t Ter ry never thel ess em phati cal l y r efused to autho ri ze fri sks of j us t any sus p icio u s p erson . Th e Sup rem e C ou rt author i zed such i ntrusi ve sea rche s only i n thos e narr ow ci rcum sta n c es i n w hi ch a pol i ce o ffi cer“has r ea so n t o b el i ev e th athe i s dea l i ngwi tha n a r m ed an d dangero us i nd i vid ual

. ” Id

. at27
. Probabl e ca use t o ar re st is not requ ired, no r n eed the offi cer be “ab solutely certa in ” t h at th e p er so n is a rm ed , bu t “ a re as on ab ly prudent m an i n the ci rcum sta nces [m u st] be w ar ra nted i n the b el i efthathi s sa fety o r tha t o fo th er s was i n da nger . ” Id . In a c om panio n case to Terry, th e S u p r e meN o. 09

- 4082 17 Cou r t emphas i ze d thi s ne ed f o r s pec i fi c f ac ts i ndi ca ting d an ger: The pol i c e offic eri s no t e nti tl ed to se i ze and sear ch eve ryper son w hom he s ees o n the st re et or ofwh om he make s i nquiri es . Be f o r e he pl ac es a ha nd o n the perso n of a ci ti zen i n sea rch of anythi ng, h e m ust ha v e c o ns t i t ut i o na l l y ade qu a t e , r e a s o nab l e g r o un ds f ordoi ng so . I n the case o fthe sel f

- prot ecti ve sea rch for weapons, he m ust be abl e t o poi nt to part i cul ar f ac ts fr o m whi chhe r ea so nabl y in fe r r ed th atthe i nd i vi du alwas ar m ed and dangero us. Sibro n v . New Yo rk, 3 92 U. S

. 4 0, 64 (196 8) ( ex pl aini ng re ver salo fco nvi cti on ba sed o n re sul ts ofunj usti fi ed fris k). Fr i sks ar e “ not to be undert ake n l i ghtl y. ” Terry, 392 U
. S. at17

. T h e n ee d for a rea so n ab le s u s p i c ion th at th e s u b j ec t is “ar m ed and dangero us”

— n otm er ely su sp icio u s in gener al

— i s k ey to thi s ca se, and hel ps t o dist i ngui sh l egi ti m ate pro tect i ve f ri sks fr om the abuses the Four th A m endm ent was i ntended to l im i t. S ee Arizona v. Johns on , 1 2 9 S

. C t
. 7 8 1 , 7 8 4 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ T ] o p r o c e e d fr o m a st op to a frisk, th e po lice offic er m u s t r ea so n ab ly su s p ect th at th e pe rson stop p ed i s arm ed and da ng erous. ”)

. A r evi ew of t h e f acts as f ound by the di str i ct cour t, as wellas deci si ons by thi s a n d o th erci rcui ts, sh o ws th at Deputy Kai se r s i m pl y l ac k ed su ffi ci en t co nsti tuti onalgr ounds to subj ec t T i nnie to the i ntrusi on and i nd i gni ty ofa f ri sk. For starters , w he n Dep ut y K aiser ap p roach ed th e car, he d i d no tkno w a ny thingab o utthe dr i v e r o r the pas-18 N o. 09

- 4082

sen ger. H e ha d no reason to believe th at either w as inh eren tly mor e dan g er o us tha n a ny o th ermot o ris t he m i ght e ncounterduri ng a tr affi c st op. S ee Ybar r a v. Il li nois , 44 4 U.S

. 85 , 93 ( 1979 ) ( fi nd i ng i nsuffi c ient f acts to j usti fy fri sk, tak i ng i nto acco unt f act that pol i ce di d not “r eco gni ze [ the defendant] as a per son w i th a cri m i nal h ist or y” ); U ni t e d S t a tes v. Thom as , 51 2 F
. 3d 383, 38 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( up ho l di ngfr i s kwh e r e o ffi c e r “ wa s c o nc e r ne d, bas ed on p riori nform a t io n , thatTh om as w as arm ed ”). N orwas thi s t ra ffi c st op c ar ri ed out f oran o ffense “so sugge sti ve ofthe p re se n ce a nd use ofweapons that a f ri sk i s a l w ays r eas onabl e. ” U nite d State s v. B arnet t, 50 5 F. 3d 637, 64 0 ( 7th Ci r. 2 007) ( re ver si ng g ra nt o fm oti on to su p p ress w he re officer frisked su sp ect in bu rglary that li kel y invol ved a w eapon) ; se e a l so Terry, 392 U
. S. at 28 (d ee m in g fris k jus tifie d w h er e o ffice r re as on ab ly suspecte d prep ar ati ons f orar m ed robber y)

. A s a r esul t, Dep uty Ka i s e r ’ s fr i s kc a n b e j us t i fi e d, i fa ta l l, b a sed onl y o n hi s inter acti ons w i th Ti nnie
. Tu r ningt o tho s e i nt e r a c t i o ns , a s De pu t y Ka i s e r a ppr o a c he d the c a r ’ s p ass eng e r s i de , h e s a w Tinn i e “ fi dget i ng” a nd act i ng “a s i fhe was uncom f or tabl e o r j ust re adj usti ng. ” Deputy Kais eras ked f orTi nnie ’ s i den ti fi cation. Pa ssen ger Tinn ie sai d h e d id not h ave a d river’ s l i cense, so Dep uty K ai ser ask ed hi m f or hi s I D ca rd . I n r e s p o n s e t o th i s r e q u e s t, T i n n i e r a n h i s h a n d s d o wn his coat an d p inch ed th e top of his blue j ean s b efore re sponding that he di d not hav e his I D card with hi m ei ther

. Depu ty Kais erthen ask ed f orTi nnie ’ s nam e, d ate of bir th, and age. T inn ie r esp ond ed w ith his (corr ec t) da te o fb i r thb utg av e hi s ag e i n ye ar s athi s ne xtN o. 09

- 4082 19 birthd ay, not that da y. T hrou gh ou t t h e enc ou nt er, T in nie w as coop erative, acc ord ing to D ep ut y K aiser, and he ga ve no i nd i cati on that he w as ar m ed. U nl i ke so m any o therfri sk case s, Deputy Kais erneve r obs er ved an y b ul g es i n Tinni e’ s cl o th i ngi ndi ca tingtha t h e m i g ht be concea l i ng a w eapon. Regar dle ss, Dep uty Kai ser or dered Ti nnie o ut o fthe car, esc or te d him to the back ofthe vehi cl e, and announced th at h e w as going to f ri sk hi m f oro ffi cersa fety
. T he district cou rt found that those f a c t s alone w ere suffi ci ent to j usti fy the f ri sk. M y col l eagues say th ey te nd t o a g r ee , wi th ou t q uite ho l di nga s m uch

. Iad d ress below the d istri ct cou rt’s and the m aj ority’ s re l i ance o n Depu ty K ai ser’s questi oni ng as he b ega n to f ri sk Tinni e t o j u st ify the fri sk i tse l f

. Fo r the m om ent, though, l et’ s f ocus on w hat occur re d b ef or e the fr i sk bega n: i n a h i g h- c r i me a r e a a tn i g ht, a p a s s e ng e r mo ves o r a dj u s t s h i s p o s i t i o n a s th e p o l i c e a pp r o a c h, s e e ms nerv ous, gi ves an ag e an d b irth date that do not quit e m at ch, a nd whe n a sk ed f o r I D, runs hi s ha nds a l o ng h i s pants and pinches them befor e s ayi ng he does not have any i denti fi cati on o n hi s per son. Suspici ous? Yes. A r eason able i nd i cati on that the passe ngeri s a rm ed and dangero us? N o. Recal l thatTi nnie and the dri verw er e n ot suspecte d of o r s to pped f o r a v i o l en t cr i m e, dr ugt r affi ck i ng, o r a ny othe r cri m e co nnec te d to a thre at ofvi ol ence. The st op w as for a ir fre sh en er s o b st ru c tin g t h e w in d s h ield . A lthough Ti nnie act ed ner vou s w hen confro nted, ner vousne ss i s, f o r ob vi o us re as o ns , “ o fl i m i te d v al ue i n a ss es sing20 N o. 09

- 4082

re as on ab le s u sp icio n .” U nited St at e s v. Si m ps on , 60 9 F.3 d 11 40 , 114 7 (1 0t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nite d State s v. U rr ie ta , 520 F. 3d 569, 57 7 (6t h C i r. 20 08) ( “A l though ner vousnes s m ay be consi dered as part of the ove rall circum sta nces gi vi ng r i se to a r eas onabl e s uspici on, thi s co urt has f ound nervo usness i nherent l y un s us pi ci ous , and has th er efo r e g i ve n i t ve r y l i m i te d o r no weight i n the re as on ab le-s u sp icio n ca lcu lat ion .”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cKoy, 4 2 8 F .3d 38 , 40 (1 st C ir. 20 05 ) (sa m e); U nited Sta tes v. P o rtillo -A gu irre, 31 1 F .3d 64 7, 65 6 n. 49 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 2) (no tingtha t co ur ts “ o fte n g i ve l i tt l e o r no w ei ght t o an o ffi cer ’ s co ncl usi onalst ate m ent that a su sp ec t a p p ea re d n er vo u s” ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 2 69 F. 3d 919, 92 8 ( 8th Ci r. 20 01) ( sa m e); se e a l so U nited Sta tes v. Ri ch ar ds on , 38 5 F
. 3d 625, 63 0- 31 ( 6th Ci r. 20 04) ( no t i ngtha tn er vo us ne s s i s “ e s pe c i a l l y ” t e nu o us s up p ort fora frisk m ad e “in the cont ex t of a traff ic stop” ). Ho we v e r n e r v o us T i nn i e mi g hth a v e a pp e a r e d, h e n e ver m o ve d a s i fhe wer e r eachingf o r a c o nc ea l ed wea po n. A nd h i s ner vous pinchi ng and feel i ng o fhi s pants bef or e s ayi ng he had no I D w i th h im i s ce rt ai nl y no t a re aso nabl e ba si s for c oncl ud i ng tha t he w as ar m ed and dangero us. The add i ti onal fact that Dep uty Kai serenco untere d T in n i e “ lat e a t n igh t in a h igh -c rim e n eig hb or h oo d ” d id not change these ci rcum sta nces enough t o j usti fy a fri sk. W hile contex t is certain ly im p ortan t to the tota li ty-ofth e- cir cumst an ce s an al y si s, ne i th erthe l at en es s o fthe h o u r n o r th e n a t u r e o fth e l o c a l e a u t o ma t i c a l l y t r a n s f o r ms no n- thr e a t e ninga c t s i nt o i nd i c a t o r s o fda nger . P e r ha ps the l ate ness ofthe h ou r w oul d be s i gni fi cant i fdark

ness had l i m i ted Deputy Kais er ’ s ab ili ty to see wh atN o. 09

- 4082 21 Ti nni e was do i ng

— an off i c e r m ak in g a tra ffic s to p is cer tai nly e nti tl ed to exer ci se gr eat ercauti on wh en a susp ec t’s ac tio n s a re v e i l e d in s h ad ow . C f. Y ba rra , 444 U
. S. at9 2 ( no ting, i n o ve r tu r ni ngfr isk, tha t “the l i g ht i ng w as su fficie n t” for l a w en for c em en t t o s ee th e in d ividu als i n th e tavern w he re the fri sk w as con d uc ted ). Bu t nothi ng i n the re cor d ind i cate s that Dep u ty K ai ser ha d any ac tu al difficulty seein g Tinn ie at any tim e. T he re w as, a ft e r al l, enou gh l ight for him to see Tinn ie shift ar ound in hi s s eatand pinch the l eg ofhi s pants. Ias cribe e quall y littl e s i gni fi cance to the f act that Tinni e was co nfr onte d i n a hi gh- cri m e a rea “ desi gnate d by stat e a nd l o c a l o ffi c i a l s . ” Whi l e “ the f a c ttha tthe s t op o cc u r r e d in a ‘ h i g h c r i me a r e a ’ [ i s ] a mo n gth e r e l e v an t conte xtual co nsi derat i ons i n a Ter ry an al ysi s, ” Il l i noi s v. War dl aw , 52 8 U
. S. 11 9, 12 4 ( 2000 ) , ther e s ti l l needs to be a r ea so nabl e co nne ct i o n b etwee n the ne i g hb o r ho o d’s high er crim e rate an d the facts rel ied u p on to su p p ort a fri sk. In otherwords, we shoul d ask, f orexam ple , w hetherTi nnie ’ s be havi orwas consi ste nt with that of th e viol en t crim inals know n to frequ en t tha t area. C f. Terry, 3 92 U. S

. a t 22

- 23 ( no tinghow de fen dan t’ s no ncri m i nal behav i orappeare d suspici ous wh en vi ew ed i n c o nt ex t)

. Unl es s we r equir e atl ea sts o m e su chc o nnectio n, we gi ve l aw enf or cem ent the i m press i on that fris ks w ill re c e ive m u c h les s s c ru tin y w h en p er for m ed in h igh -c rim e a re as . Th at is p ar tic u lar ly p ro b l em at ic in th is case , wh er e th e d esi gnate d “hi gh- cri m e a re a” occupi ed half o fthe c i t y o fR o c k f o r d. S et tinga si de th es e pr o bl em s, the di st r i ctc o ur t an d m y c o l l ea g ue s se ekt o j us ti fy the f r i skb y r ely i ngo n Tin-22 N o. 09

- 4082 ni e’ s r esponse s t o thre e qu est i ons Dep uty Kai serpose d as he b e g a n the f r i s k

. Af t e r t e l l i ng Ti nn i e tha t he w as ab ou t t o b e fris ke d for offic er sa fet y a n d w alk in g h im to th e re ar ofthe car, Deputy Kais eras ked wh ether Ti nni e ha d a ny wea po ns o r dr ug s i n h i s po ss essi on. Tinni e di d not i m m edi ate l y r espond. Deputy Kais er then as ked i fTi nnie had any w eapons, guns, o r thi ngs th at w ou ld p ok e t h e d ep u ty ’s h an d s, an d ag ain T in n ie di d no t r es po nd. De puty Kai se r th ena sk ed Ti nni e i fhe had any drugs, a n d Ti nnie i m m edi ate l y s ai d no. Fr om these di ffer ent r esponse s t o differ en t questi ons, Deputy K ais er infe rre d th at T in n ie m igh t h av e a w ea p on . I t turned o ut thathe was r i ght. W he n e v a l ua t i ngDe pu t y Ka i s e r ’ s de c i s i o n t o fr i sk Tinni e, however, we m ay consi der o n ly th e info rm ati on that Dep u ty K ai serhad at the m om ent he i ni ti ate d the fri sk and m us t d isrega rd any i nfo rm ati on g ather ed aft er th e fr isk h ad alre ad y b eg u n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. O dum , 72 F.3d 12 79, 1284 (7th C ir. 1995), ci ti ng Terry, 392 U
. S. at 21- 22. M y c ol l eagues a nd the d istr i ct c ourtbo th concl ud e that the fri sk had not be gun w hen Depu ty K ai seras ked the se questi ons because Deputy Kais er had not y et l ai d his hands on Ti nnie
. I n other w or ds, they define a “fri sk” nar ro w ly as onlytho se m om ents du ring wh i ch an o ffi cer ’ s hands ar e in physical conta ct w i th a suspect’ s bo dy. This narr ow d efi ni ti on o fa fri sk w ou ld re quir e us to cl ose o ur e yes to r eal i ty and w oul d en c ou ra ge agg re ssi ve and i ntrusi ve pol i ce t acti cs, es peci al l y duri ng pre tex tu al traffi c s t op s. U nd er the m aj ority’ s d efinition of aN o. 09

- 4082 23 f ri sk, o ffi cer s m ay tel l a suspect that he is g oin g to be f r i sk ed an d r equi r e hi m t o a ss um e th e po si ti o n f or a f ri sk befo rebeginn ing the qu estioning need ed to j us tify the fri sk i tse l f

. Bent o verthe h oo d o fa caro r press ed ag a i n s t a w all in th e m id d le of t h e n igh t, m os t p eo p le w oul d b e extr em el y nerv ous and di sor i ented. I t w ou ld be e asyeno ugh f oran e nter pri si ng pol i ce o ffi certo fi nd s o m e j us ti fi ca ti o n f o r a fr i sk in a ny ne r vo us re sponses gi ve n a t such a vul nerabl e m om ent. M or eove r, the m aj ority ’ s a pp ro ach em bra ces the c i rcul ar l ogi c thatpol i ce m ay j usti fy a fri sk by obs er vi ng how the s ubj e c tr e s po nd s wh e n t o l d h e i s ab o utt o b e fr i s k e d. ForFo urth A m endm ent purpos es, a perso n can be “seize d” bef or e he i s a ctual l y r est ra i ned by physi cal f or ce, atthe m om ent when, gi ven a l l the ci rcum sta nces, a r eas onabl e per son w ou ld bel i eve he i s no t fre e t o lea ve . M i c h ig a n v . C h e s t e r nut, 4 86 U

. S. 567, 573 (1988 ). E s s e n t i a l l y th e s a me r u l e s h o u l d a p p l y t o a f r i s k

. We sh ou l d d e te rm in e a t w h atp oin t in tim e a rea so n ab le perso n i n Ti nnie ’ s pos i ti on wou ld have thought that th e o ffi ce r ’ s act i o ns wer e par t o fthe pr o ce ss o fc o ndu cti ng a f ri sk. S uch a t est, l i ke the t estappli ed to seiz ures , would “as ses s the co er ci ve effect ofpol i ce c o n d u c t, taken as a w hole, rath er than

. . . f ocu s on p arti cul ardetai l s of that co nd uct i n i sol ati on. ” Che s t e r nut, 48 6 U .S. at 57 3. Fu rt h er m or e, it w ou ld b e “ f l e x i b le en o ug h t o b e appl i ed to the who l e r an g e o fpo l i ce c o nd u ct” w hi l e “ cal l [ i ng] f orco nsi ste nt appli cati on fro m on e pol i ce e ncounterto the next” a nd pro vi ding unif o r m g ui da nc e t o l a w e nfo r c e ment offi c e r s i n the fi e l d. Id. at 574.24 N o. 09

- 4082 A pp l yi ng thi s s tandard t o th e f acts her e, i t i s cl ear th at T i nni e woul d r ea so nabl y ha ve b el i ev ed th atthe f ri sk w as al re ady underw ay w h en Deputy Kais eras ked i fhe ha d a gun i n hi s pos ses sion . B y the t i m e Ti nnie was ask ed i fhe w as carr yi ng a gun, Deputy Kais erhad al r ea dy o r der ed hi m o uto fthe car, wal k ed hi m t o the bac k ofthe car, and to l d him thathe was ab out to be f ri ske d. W h en Deputy Kais erannounced hi s intent to c on d u c t a frisk , a p er so n in T in n ie’s p os itio n w ou ld re aso nabl y hav e believ ed thatthe f ri sk proce du re had al r ea dy be g un

— he ce rt ai nl y would nothave feltfre e to w al k a w ay ort o re fuse t o al l ow D eputy Kai serto touch hi m . The fri sk had begun bythe ti m e Deputy K ai seras ked Ti nnie wh etherhe ha d any weapons o r dr ug s, makingTi nni e’ s r es po ns es t o tho se que stions i rr el evantto the Ter ry anal ysi s. Bas ed o n the f ac ts i n the r ec o r d, Ic o nc l ude tha t th e f r i sko fTi nni e vi o l at ed the F o ur thAm en dm en t. But I am n otalon e in find in g a frisk like t h is t o b e u nj u st ified . In si m i l arcas es, o therco urts have deem ed th e se ar ch es unc o ns ti tu ti o na l

. F o r e xa m pl e, i n U nited St at e s v. M cKoy, 42 8 F
. 3d 38 ( 1s t Ci r . 2 00 5) , po l i ce c o ndu c te d a dayl i ght t ra ffi c st op f orpark i ng and l i cense p late viol ations in a high -cri m e area. A s the officers app ro ached, the dri veravo i ded ey e co ntact, appeare d ne rvou s, an d l ean ed to reach his ri gh t han d tow ard th e cen ter con sole. Ba sed on th os e fact s, th e officers o r der ed th e dr i ve r o ut o f th e ca r, fr i sk ed hi m , a nd f ound d rugs . T h e Fi rs t Ci rcui t a ffi rm ed the supp re ssi on ofthe evi dence f ound in the fri sk, f ocusi ng o n the need for se p ar at e a n aly sis of w h e t h er th er e w as rea so n ab leN o. 09

- 4082 25 suspi ci on that the dri verwas ar m ed and dangero us. The hi gh- cri m e a re a was a re l evantf acto r, but so w as the f act that the r eas on for the st op w as onl y m i nor tr affi c vi o l at i ons “fr o m whi chno a ss um pti o n abo ut w eapons m ay fairl y b e dra w n. ” Id

. at 40. T he driver’s nerv ousnes s and m ove m ent di d not j usti fy the fri sk: “N er vousnes s i s a co m m on a nd enti re l y naturalr eact i on to pol i ce prese nce, ” a nd the re ach f orthe cente r conso l e was co nsi ste nt with re achi ng f ora l i cense or re gis tr at ion
. Id. The F i r stCi r cui t ac k no wl ed ged the vi ta l ne ed f o r po l i ce o fficers to pr o te ctthe m se l ve s, b ut i t r ej ecte d the g overn m ent’ s a rgum ent, wh i ch “co m es to o c l o se to a l l o wi nga n a ut o m at i c f r i sko fa ny o ne who com m i ts a t ra ffi c vi ol ati on i n a hi gh- cri m e a re a. ” Id

. T h e Sixth Cir cui t a ffi rm ed the gr ant o fa m oti on t o su ppr es s i n a s im il arc as e i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 50 6 F
. 3d 488 (6th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. Offi ce r s st o pped a dr i ve r a nd p assen ger w ho w ere not w earing s e atbe lts. Bot h w ere ne r vo us , a nd the driver r ambl ed o n i n r es po ns e to o ne o ffi ce r ’ s que st i o ns a nd sa i d he ha d pr ev i o us l y b ee n c o nvi cted o n a federa l fi re ar m s char ge. The c arwas re gi ste re d to a di ffer ent per son, and the dri verta l ked o n his cell p hon e and then told th e pa ssen ger, “T he y’re com i ng. ” The o ffi cer s a sked b ot h to ge t o ut o fthe car and th e n f r i s k e d the m. T he fr i s ko fthe p a s s e ng e r tur ned up dr ug s. The S i xth Ci r cui t he l d tha t th e f r i sko fthe pas se ng erwas unc o nsti tu ti o na l, c o nc l udi ngtha t th e o nl y s us pi ci ou s c onduc t th atc o ul d b e as cr ibe d t o the p as se n ge r h im se lf w as h i s n er vo u sn es s, w h ich sim p ly w as n oten ou gh to su p p or t t h e fris k. Id

. at49 5- 96.26 N o. 09

- 4082 M y c ol l eagues r el y o n case s that pl ace i n shar p re l i ef th e l a c k o f a n y i n d i c a t i o n th a t T i n n i e wa s a r me d a nd dangero us. Fo r ex am ple , m y c ol l eagues ci te U nited Sta tes v. B row n, 27 3 F .3d 74 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 01 ), for th e p ro p os iti o n tha t ne r vo us move m en ts may j us ti fy a fr i sk

. But Br own per m i tte d a fri sk w here the defen d an t had ac ted nerv ousl y b efor e m aki ng a thre ate ni ng “qui ck m ove ” w he n asked to st ep out ofhi s v ehi cl e. 23 7 F
. 3d at 748. Ti nni e, b y c o nt r as t, ne ve r made a “quickmove ” ( o r a ny othe r thre ate ni ng m ove , f or that m att er ) that D ep u ty K ai serco uld have per cei ved as thr eat eni ng. M y c o l l ea g ue s’ r el i an ce o n Cady v. Sh e ahan , 467 F

. 3d 1057( 7th Ci r. 200 6), f orthe bro ad propos i ti on that evas ive answ ers ind icate d an gerou sn ess is equ all y un p ersu asi ve. Cady w as f ri ske d not m er el y b ecause he was evas i ve, but because he was also “l urking o utsi de a cou r tho us e we l l b e f o r e i to pe ne d t o the p ub l i c , wa s s habbi l y dr es se d, had nots ho wer ed,

. . . c l ai m ed to b e se r ving fed er al p ro c es s o n a Sh er i f f ’ s offic er . . . an d rep ea te d ly re ached i nto hi s br i ef case . ” Id. at 1062

. E va siveness asi de, i t is h ar d to s ee how Ti nnie i s co m parabl e t o Cad y, wh ose st ri ki ngl y unusual behav i orcer tai nl y g ave l a w e n f o r c e me n t r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e th a t h e p o s e d a danger to hi m sel fo r othe rs . U nite d States v. O gles by, 597 F. 3d 891 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 1 0), from w hich the m aj ority cl aim s tha t Tinn ie ’s m ere prese nce i n a hi gh- cri m e a re a is si gni fi cant, i s no t o n po i nt
. I n O gles by, the de fen dan t was pr es en t i n a hi g hc rim e a re a, b u t h e a lso h ad ac te d in a m an n er “p ot en tia lly ca l cu lated t o k ee p a wea po n h i ddeno r o uto fr ea ch ”N o. 09

- 4082 27

an d a ppea r ed to “ be t r y i ngt o c o nfi r m tha t hi s g un [ w as] co nceal ed and secur ed. ” Id. at 895. By co ntra st, D ep u ty K ais er n ev er ind i c at ed th at h e t h ou gh t T in n ie had tri ed to co nceala w eapon, o n ly that he be l i eve d that Tinn ie w as “hi ding som ethi ng. ” I t has bee n cl earsince Terry, t h ou gh , th at a b elie f th at a p er so n is ac tin g s u sp ici ousl y i s j ust no t en ou gh to j usti fy a fri sk. U nd er Terry, Dep uty Kai serneeded m ore sp eci fi c r eas ons f or bel i evi ng tha t Ti nnie pose d a dangerto hi m sel fo r othe rs . W e sh o ul d not ove r l o o kDe puty Kai se r ’ s te st i m o ny tha t hi s s t a nd a r d pr a c t i c e wa s t o f r i s k a ny o ne wh om he a s k s / o r de r s o uto fa v e hi c l e du r i ng a tr a ffi c s t o p. Of cour se, an o ffi cer ’ s unconst i tuti onalprac ti ce c annot i nv al i dat e ano th er wi se - r ea so nabl e f r i sk. B ut s ucha s t a n d a r d p r a c t i c e r e ma i n s s i mpl y i n c o n s i s t e n t wi th t he r ul e th atfr i sk s are fo rbi ddenabs en t a r ea so nabl e an d i ndi vi dual ized sus pi ci o n tha t a su spe cti s ar m ed an d dangero us, as se t f or th by Terry, Si b r on , Y ba rra , 444 U
. S. at 92-93 (find ing no reason able su sp ici on to su p p ort f ri sk w here defendant, “whose hands w er e em pty, ga ve no i nd i cati on o fp oss ess i ng a w eapon, m ade no ges ture s oro theract i ons i nd i cati ve ofan in te n t t o com m i t a n ass au l t, and act ed gene ra l l y in a m anner that w as not th r e a t e n i n g ” ) , a n d a h o s to fl o we r c o u r td e c i s i o n s . My coll eagu es sp ecu late th at p erha p s D ep ut y K aiser or d ers pas se ng er s o ut ofthe v eh i cl e o nl y whenhe ha s co ns ti tu
ti o na l l y s uffi ci en t su spi ci o n t o c o nduc t a fr i sk

. But Deputy Kai se r h as th e au th o r i tyt o o r dere ve r y o ne o ut of th e veh i cl e, a s a m at te r o fc o ur se , e ve r y t i m e he c on d u c ts a tr affic st op . Wi l s on , 5 19 U. S

. at41 0. So a cc o r di ng to hi s o w n tes ti m ony, Deputy Kais erei ther( 1) neve r28 N o. 09

- 4082

exer ci ses thi s br oad, wh ol l y u nquali fi ed author i ty unle ss he has const i tuti onal l y s uffi ci ent s usp i ci on t o conduct a f ris k; or( 2) fri sks a consi derabl e num bero f peopl e without the co nsti tuti onalauthority t o do so

. T h e firs t p os sib ility is h igh ly im p lau sib le. Ch ri sto pher Ti nnie i s no t a sym patheti c ca nd i date f or the pr ote cti on o fthe Four th A m endm ent or the benefi ts ofthe excl usi onar y r ule

. H e was guilty of bei ng a fel on in p os se ss ion of a c on c ea le d fir ea rm , an d an u n u su ally dan g er o us fi r ea r m a t th at
. He h as ac cumul at ed a l en g th y c rim in al re c or d for, am on g ot h er th in gs , sm all-s c ale dr ugc r i m es , b atter y, a nd un l awfulus e o ffi r ea r m s. But the e xcl usi onar y r ule i s no t a pp lied forthe benefi t o f Tinni e o r othe r cri m i nal s. I t i s a pp l i ed to pro tect all ci ti zens f ro m unrea sonab l y intrusi ve, “pro acti ve, ” l aw enf or cem ent practi ces, ev en wh en car ri ed out f or lau d ab le go als . D ep u ty K ais er d id n oth av e a rea so n ab le suspi ci on that Ti nnie wa s arm ed and dangero us w hen he f r i s k e d h i m i n th e c o u r s e o f th e p r e t e x t u a l t r a ffi c s t o p. Ither ef or e r espect full y di sse nt.

1- 18- 11