Opinion ID: 6334236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Third Pat-Down

Text: The final pat-down occurred after Officer Holden asked Smith to walk from Naylor’s car to the police car yet again. This time, Officer Holden asked if Smith was injured because he had an exaggerated limp. Smith responded that he had been in a car accident. At that point, Officer Holden conducted a more thorough pat-down of Smith’s groin area and No. 21-1266 9 felt a hard metal object, which turned out to be a loaded handgun. Smith argues that a reasonable officer should have accepted his story about injuring his leg in a car accident and left it at that. But we cannot say that the district court’s credibility finding in favor of Officer Holden’s testimony was clearly erroneous. See Richmond, 924 F.3d at 410–11. Based on the body-camera footage, it is difficult for this court to determine whether Smith’s walk was indicative of an injury or something else. We defer to the district court’s finding that Smith’s behavior prior to the final pat-down elevated Officer Holden’s suspicions. In light of the totality of the circumstances—a nighttime traffic stop of an individual who appeared very nervous, walked strangely, and repeatedly rested his pelvis against cars as if to prop something up—we conclude that reasonable suspicion supported the final pat-down. As the district court observed, a contrary result would encourage more invasive initial pat-downs than the one that occurred here. Officer Holden’s first pat-down focused on “hot spots” like Smith’s waistband and pockets, the second pat-down consisted of shaking his pant legs, and only the third pat-down examined his groin area. Nonetheless, we caution that our holding turns on the particular facts of this case. Multiple pat-downs during a traffic stop are not the norm, and reasonable suspicion must support each pat-down as the stop unfolds.