Opinion ID: 931113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of the Suspicion

Text: The district court held that the police officer could initiate an investigative detention because he had reasonable grounds to suspect Mr. Benavidez of a crime. 11 This holding involves a mixed question of law and fact, triggering de novo review. 12 In conducting this review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court and uphold its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 13 “In practice, this looks more like deference—indeed, double deference—than de novo review.” 14 The police officer testified that: ! the grocery store was closing at 11:00 p.m., 8 United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 277. 9 United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981); United States v. Trujillo, 404 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th Cir. 2005). 10 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). 11 R., vol. 1 at 153:19 - 154:3. 12 Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1124 (10th Cir. 2005). 13 United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1124 (10th Cir. 2005). 14 Unites States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1125 (10th Cir. 2005). 4 ! Mr. Benavidez and another man were crouched near a car door, looking at something, ! the men were parked about 120 feet from the entrance of the grocery store, and ! the grocery store was known as a meeting place for drug deals. 15 The district court relied on this testimony and made similar factual findings. 16 When these circumstances are viewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s holding, a reasonable police officer would have suspected criminal activity. 17 Perhaps in isolation, the circumstances might have seemed innocent. For example, the police might have viewed the scene differently if the store had not been closing, if the two men had been parked closer to the store entrance, if Mr. Benavidez had not been crouched and looking at something, or if the parking lot had not been known as a place for drug deals. But viewing the circumstances together, the district court concluded that Detective Bravo had specific articulable 15 See R., vol. 1 at 71, 73, 79. 16 See R, vol. 1 at 148, 153. 17 See United States v. Conner, 699 F.3d 1225, 1231 (10th Cir. 2012) (stating that the time of night and a substantial history of crime at the place where the stop had occurred affect reasonableness of the suspicion); United States v. McHugh, 639 F.3d 1250, 1257 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating that a report that men were “‘lurking’ around [a] parking lot” and “acting hinky” had added to the circumstances creating reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop). 5 facts to harbor a reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress. 18 Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s resolution, we agree and affirm. Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach