COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Hum phreys and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

JOSEPH RODGERS OUTTEN MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1916-09-1 J UDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH James C. Hawks, Judge Gregory K. Matthews (Joseph A. Sadighian; Office of the Public Defender, on briefs), for appellant. Rosemary V. Bourne, Assistan t Attorney Genera l (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney Genera l, on brief), for appellee.
Joseph Rodgers Outten (“Outten”) appeals his conviction in the Port smouth Circuit Court (“circuit court”) on one count of possession of a firearm after havi ng been convicted of a violent felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2(A). 1 Outten alleges the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence against him, arguing it was obt ained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches a nd seizures. For the r easons that follow, we disagree with Outten and affirm.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 There appears to be a clerical error in the sentencing order. On page 2, the order states “the Court suspends none of the sentence imposed for Aggravated Sexual Battery (18.2-308.2(A)) (count 1).” Code § 18.2-308.2(A), however, criminalizes “possession or transportation of firearms, firearms ammunition, stun weapons, explosives or concealed weapons by convicted felons,” for which Outten was ch arged. Outten does not appear to have been additionally charged with aggravated sexual battery.- 2 - Outten contends the trial court erred in de nying his motion to suppress. He argues on appeal, as he did in the court below, that Officer Henderson lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion for the seizure of Outten’s person. He further reasons that, even if Henderson did have reasonable suspicion to support th e initial stop, the scope and ma nner of the detention was so excessive as to require evidence supporting the more rigid standard of probable cause. We disagree. When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to the Commonwealth all reasonable inferences fairly deducible” therefrom. Sabo v. Commonwealth , 38 Va. App. 63, 69, 561 S.E.2d 761, 764 (2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Grimstead , 12 Va. App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991)). “[W]e are bound by the tr ial court’s findings of historic al fact unless ‘plainly wrong’ or without evidence to support them and we give due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and loca l law enforcement officers.” McGee v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 193, 198, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) (en banc). Nevertheless, “‘[u]ltimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause . . . involve questions of both law and fact and are reviewed de novo on appeal.’” Ramey v. Commonwealth , 35 Va. App. 624, 628, 547 S.E.2d 519, 521 (2001) (quoting Neal v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 233, 237, 498 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1998)). Ultimately, the burden rests upon the de fendant to show that the denial of his suppression motion constituted reversible error. McCain v. Commonwealth , 261 Va. 483, 490, 545 S.E.2d 541, 545 (2001) (citing Fore v. Commonwealth , 220 Va. 1007, 1010, 265 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1980)). It is well settled that “[a] police officer may conduct a brief inves tigatory stop when the officer, in light of his training and experience, ha s reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Jones v. Commonwealth , 279 Va. 665, 673, 691 S.E.2d 801, 805 (2010)- 3 - (citing Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21, 27, 30 (1968)). Protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment require, at a minimum, that any dete ntion of an individual no matter how brief “be justified by an objective manifestation that the person stopped is engaged, or is about to be engaged, in criminal activity.” Id. (citing United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)). To that end, “an officer’s subjective characterization of observed conduct is not relevant to a court’s analysis concerning whether there is a reasonab le suspicion because th e Court’s review of whether there was reasonable su spicion involves application of an objective rather than a subjective standard.” Harris v. Commonwealth , 276 Va. 689, 697, 668 S.E.2d 141, 146 (2008). In deciding “whether a police officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the person stopped may be involve d in criminal activity, a court must consider [not only] the totality of the circumstances,” Ewell v. Commonwealth , 254 Va. 214, 217, 491 S.E.2d 721, 722 (1997), but also the f act that “trained law enforcement officers may be ‘able to perceive and articulate meaning in given c onduct which would be wholly innocent to the untrained observer,’” Castaneda v. Commonwealth , 7 Va. App. 574, 580, 376 S.E.2d 82, 85 (1989) (quoting United States v. Gooding , 695 F.2d 78, 82 (4th Cir. 1982)). “The Fourth Amendment does not require a policem an who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. A brief stop of a susp icious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, ma y be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Simmons v. Commonwealth , 217 Va. 552, 554-55, 231 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1977) (quoting Adams v. Williams , 407 U.S. 143, 145-46 (1972)). “The welf are of the public demands that a law enforcement officer use his faculties of observa tion and act thereon within proper limits.” Howard v. Commonwealth , 210 Va. 674, 677, 173 S.E.2d 829, 832 (1970). “It is not only the- 4 - right, but the duty, of a police officer to inve stigate suspicious c onduct, and he may ‘in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner appro ach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an
arrest.’” Id. (quoting Terry , 392 U.S. at 22). In this case, the facts known to Detective Henderson at the time of the seizure, viewed objectively and taken in their en tirety, clearly provided Detectiv e Henderson with the requisite reasonable suspicion for the seizure of Outten’s person. Detective Henderson was approached at approximately ten o’clock p.m. by two “excited or agitated” females w ho reported to Henderson that an individual was walking dow n Lincoln Street toward Deep Creek with a gun in his hands. The young women were “very insist ent” that Henderson look down the street. Henderson looked and observed Outten with a firearm in his hand h eaded toward the intersection of Lincoln and Deep Creek. When Henderson “informed dispat ch of what was going on,” he was told that another “concerned citizen” had alrea dy called in similar information. Henderson noticed that Outten was “staggeri ng back and forth across the street” on the sidewalk. Outten was “[v]ery unsteady on his f eet, [and] it appeared to [Henderson] that [Outten] could not maintain a straight line of walk.” Henderson also noted that Outten was holding a rifle across his body, with one hand direc tly on the butt stock of the rifle and one hand on the forearm of the rifle. According to He nderson’s training and experience, which included five years of active military duty in the Middle East following September 11, 2001, such a posture was “aggressive,” and indicated a ready to use position. More importantly, Outten was walking in this manner toward a group of people exiting a nearby church. It is simply of no moment, as Outten suggests, that it is not unlawful to carry a firearm in public. It does not necessarily follow from one’s right to bear arms that bearing a weapon in a “ready to use position” may not properly be a component of reas onable suspicion that criminal- 5 - activity may be afoot, especially when combin ed with apparent in toxication. Henderson’s actions were reasonable, especially in light of his training and expe rience, to dispel his understandable suspicion that Outten was either intoxicated, or that he was about to commit a crime of some sort with the firearm. Thus, Ou tten’s brief seizure for th e purpose of investigating the circumstances did not offend the Fourth Amendment. We likewise reject Outten’s secondary asser tion that, even if the seizure of his person was based upon reasonable suspicion, the manner in which he was seized requires a showing of probable cause. It is true th at Henderson initially approached Outten with his weapon drawn and ordered Outten to drop the rifle and get down on the ground. It is also true that Henderson placed Outten in handcuffs. However, Henderson repeatedly testified that Outten was merely in investigative detention until Henderson could “determine what the situation was.” Henderson explained that although Outten dr opped the rifle when ordered to do so, Henderson could not immediately assess whether or not Outten was in possession of other weapons. He could not, therefore, know whether his safety or that of the individuals standing at the nearby church was still at risk. Although we recognize that police procedures during a Terry stop can . . . be so intrusive . . . as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments , there is no litmus-paper test for distinguishing . . . when a seizure exceeds the bounds of an investigative stop. The Supreme Court has instru cted that, in evaluating whether an investiga tive detention is unreasonable, common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria. While the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of time, the scope of the intrusion permitted will vary with each case. Thomas v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 851, 856-57, 434 S.E.2d 319, 322-23 (1993) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The use of handcuffs during this phase of the investigation does not alter our an alysis. Brief, complete depriv ations of a suspect’s liberty,- 6 - including handcuffing, ‘do not convert a stop and fris k into an arrest so long as the methods of restraint used are reasonable to the circumstances.’” Id. at 857, 434 S.E.2d at 323 (quoting United States v. Crittendon , 883 F.2d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 1989)). “Once an officer has lawfully stopped a suspect, he is ‘authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect [his and others’] personal safety and to maintain the status quo during th e course of the stop.’” Jackson v. Commonwealth , 22 Va. App. 347, 356, 470 S.E.2d 138, 143 (1996) (quoting Servis v. Commonwealth , 6 Va. App. 507, 519, 371 S.E.2d 156, 162 (1988)). “‘Reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene allowing for th e need of split-second decisions and without regard to the officer’s intent or motivation.’” Thompson v. Commonwealth , 54 Va. App. 1, 7, 675 S.E.2d 832, 834-35 (2009) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth , 20 Va. App. 725, 727, 460 S.E.2d 610, 612 (1995)). Given the time of night and the manner with which Outten was handling the rifle, it was not unreasonable for Henderson to order Outten to the ground and handcuff him, briefly, for further investigation. Indeed, the protection of both the police and the public, which is of paramount importance, clearly required such ac tion under the facts pres ented. Contrary to Outten’s assertion, a showing of probable cause was simply not required in order to place Outten in handcuffs; Outten was not yet under arrest. In other words, the manner in which Henderson dealt with Outten was minimally intrusive and, as such, was reasonable and appropriate for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence in this case, and we remand the matte r to the trial court for the sole purpose of correcting the apparent clerical e rror in the sentencing order. Affirmed and remanded.