Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen John LEMOS, Jr., a/k/a J. Lance, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1994-09-13
Citations: 35 F.3d 513
Docket Number: No. 93-2196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen John LEMOS, Jr., a/k/a J. Lance, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KELLY, SETH and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 35
Pages: 513–516

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen John LEMOS, Jr., a/k/a J. Lance, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-2196.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 13, 1994.
Kathleen A. Felton, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Appellate Section, Crim. Div., Washington, DC (Larry Gomez, Acting U.S. Atty., and Tara C. Neda, Asst. U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, NM, with her on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
M. Alan Ceballos, Ceballos, Shorstein, Kelly and Daze, Jacksonville, FL (Richard J. Knowles, Albuquerque, NM, with him on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before KELLY, SETH and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The government appeals from the district court's granting of Mr. Lemos' motion to suppress evidence obtained incident to a search of his luggage. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and we reverse for further proceedings.
We have concluded that this appeal should be remanded in light of United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir.1994) (en banc), insofar as the factors evaluated by the district court do not constitute a nonconsensual encounter as a matter of law. See id. at 1504-05. We do note our agreement with the district court's conclusion that reasonable suspicion did not exist when Agent Candela-ria began questioning Mr. Lemos. See United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616, 621 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Bloom, 975 F.2d 1447, 1458 (10th Cir.1992).
On remand, the district court should consider whether there existed a sufficient level of individualized suspicion necessary to seize Mr. Lemos's luggage. This inquiry should include whether this incident was really commenced by a search, whatever thereafter developed, requiring probable cause, as discussed in Judge Seth's concurring opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.