Opinion ID: 3030141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the stop—a seizure under fourth amendment

Text: STANDARDS The threshold question is whether there was a stop by the rangers or whether Becerra-Garcia voluntarily stopped his van. The government takes the position that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated because Becerra-Garcia stopped his van voluntarily, not as a result of government intrusion. UNITED STATES v. BECERRA-GARCIA 1449 Becerra-Garcia testified that he stopped because the rangers flashed their emergency lights whereas the rangers claimed that they activated their lights only after the van had stopped. The district court weighed this conflicting testimony and sided with Becerra-Garcia, finding that the rangers effected a stop of the van. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and we do not disturb those findings unless “they are without foundation.” United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 2003). We are especially reluctant to set aside a determination, such as this one, that depends wholly on a credibility finding. United States v. Haswood, 350 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate court gives “special deference to the district court’s credibility determinations”). Because the district court’s conclusions are well grounded in the record, we accept the finding that the rangers stopped Becerra-Garcia. The stop falls squarely within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. DiazJuarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures extends to [an] . . . investigatory stop of a vehicle”). Having determined that a stop occurred, we next analyze the reasonableness of that stop.