N 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 intiff - Appe lle e ,
v. JOSEPH L. GAR C IA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30143

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00071-JLR -1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Ja m e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 2, 2015 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, GOULD, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r a be nc h tria l on stipula te d fa c t s, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt Jose ph Ga rc ia wa s
c onvic te d of posse ssion of m e tha m phe ta m ine with inte nt to distribute a nd se nte nc e d
to 1 35 m onths in prison followe d by 5 y e a rs of supe rvise d re l e a se . Ga rc ia a ppe a ls the 

# FIL ED
SEP 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c a t 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.
** T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d e s t h i s c a s e i s s u i t a b l e f o r d e c i s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e , a pa c k a g e of m e tha m phe ta m i ne , obta ine d during a se a rc h of his c a r p ursua nt to a w a rra nt. G a rc i a c onte nds t ha t o ffic e rs la c k e d

re a s ona ble suspic ion to c onduc t the ir initia l Te r ry stop, e xc e e de d t h e s co pe of a

r e a s ona ble Te rry stop, a nd la c ke d proba ble c a use to u ltim a te ly se iz e his car w h i l e

a wa iting issua

nc e of t he wa rra nt. W e ha ve jurisdic tion p ursua nt to 2 8 U.S.C

. § 1291,

a nd we a ffirm

. The re wa s no e rror in c onc luding, ba s e d o n the t ota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s, the W ha tc om C ounty She riff’ s offic e rs c onduc te d a la wful Te rry s top. Se e Te rry v . Ohio , 392 U .S. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 )

. Whe re , a s he re , a s ourc e o f t he offic e rs’ inform a tion is a n i n f o r m ant’ s tip, the c e ntra l inquiry is whe the r the re a re suffic ie nt “ indic ia of

re lia bility ,” Adams v . W

illiams , 407 U

. S

. 1 43, 147 (1972), to e sta blish “ a pa rtic u la riz e d a nd o bje c tive ba sis for suspe c ting the pa rtic ula r pe rson stoppe d of

c rim ina l a c tivity , ” Unite d State s v . C orte z , 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981). A f t er r ec e iving a t i p from a n ide n tifie d inform a nt tha t Ga rc ia , a known fe lon with a history of drug-re la t e d c onvic tions, would be c olle c ting m one y a n d pa rtic i pa ting i n a drug buy la te r tha t e ve ning, offic e rs se t u p i nde pe nde nt surve illa

nc e to ve rify de ta ils of t

he tip a nd obse rve Ga rc ia ’ s be h a v ior. As pre dic t ed b y the inform a n t, offic e rs obse rve d m ultiple individua ls e n te ring Ga rc ia ’ s p la c e of busine ss

a fte r 8:45 p.m ., whic h a

n offic e r e xpla ine d w a s unusua l ba s e d o n h is prior surve illa nc e
2of the busine ss. Offic e rs the n obse rve d Ga rc ia during the l a te hours of t h e night

driving in c irc uitous route s , va ry ing his spe e d, a nd s topping in t he da rk pa rking lot of

a c lose d busine ss, whic h he e xite d only a fte r a n othe r, pre v iously unse e n c a r de pa rte d— c o nduc t the offic e rs i de n t i f i e d a s c o u n t e r - s urve illa

nc e ta c t ic s a

n d c o nsiste nt with som e one on a

drug buy

. Ta ke n a s a whole a

nd inform e d by t

he offic e rs’ tra ining a nd e xpe rie nc e , the tip, the offic e rs’ subse que nt obse rva tions, a nd Ga rc ia ’ s known c rim ina l hist o r y c re a te d

re a s ona ble suspic ion tha t G a

rc i a wa s involve d

in c rim i na l a c tivity

. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State s v . Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 677–79, 682 (1985) (finding re a sona ble suspic ion of

na rc otic s tra ffic king whe re offic e rs o bse rve d truc k wa s he a vily loa de d a nd e nga ging in a bnorm a l driving pa tte rns); Unite d State s v . C otte rman , 709 F.3d 952, 968 (9th C ir. 2013) (c rim ina l history

m a y be c onside re d a s pa

rt of tota lity

of c i rc um sta

nc e s). Nor wa s the re e rror in de te rm ining the le ngth of t he s t o p wa s re a sona

ble

. Although Te rry stops m

u st “ la st no longe r tha

n is ne c e ssa

ry to e ffe c t

ua t e the purpose of the stop,” c ourts ha ve de c line d to se t a ny “ rigid tim e lim i ta tion” o n suc h stops. Sharpe , 470 U.S. a t 684–85 (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a nd c i ta tion om itte d). Nothing in the re c ord sugge sts the offic e rs unre a sona bly e xte nde d the i r stop o f G a rc i a be y ond the tim e ne c e ssa

ry t o i nve s tiga

te the ir suspic ion of c rim ina l a c t ivity

. R a the r, Ga rc ia ’ s
own c onduc t, inc luding e va ding offic e rs’ q u e stions a nd m a king a pho ne c a ll,
3c ontribute d to the le ngth of t he stop, a nd he volunta

rily re m a ine d a t t

he sc e ne a fte r the stop ha d c onc lud ed to w a it for the tow truc k. C f. Unite d S

tate s v . Montoy a de He rnande z , 473 U.S. 531, 543 (1985) (“ Our prior c a se s ha ve re fuse d to c ha rge polic e with de la y s i n inve s ti g at ory d e te ntion a ttributa ble t o the suspe c t’ s e va sive a c tions . . . .” ). Fina lly , the re wa s no e rror in de t e rm i ning the off icer s ’ r e a sona

ble suspic ion ripe ne d into proba

ble c a use to se iz e Ga rc ia ’ s c a r give n the na rc o tic s dog’ s two a le rts

a nd Ga rc ia ’ s e va sive c onduc t, pa rtic ula rly whe n m oving a ja ck e t on his c a r floor in

w h at ap p ear e d to be a n e ffort to hide som e thing. Se e F lorida v . Harris , 133 S. C t. 1050, 1055–59 (2013). Ga rc ia ’ s c onte ntions tha t t he d og a l e rts c ould b e e x pla ine d by his use o f m e dic a l m a rijua na o r the fa c t tha

t he wa s c a rry ing c a sh, whic h m ight ha ve
c onta ine d tra c e s of drug re sidue , a re una va iling. AFFIRM E D

4