Opinion ID: 164535
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Johnson's Nervousness

Text: 29 The district court next found that Johnson's fidgeting and looking about was entirely normal and therefore not a pertinent factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. The government disputes both the characterization of Johnson's behavior and the decision not to consider it. 30 The first of these decisions by the district court — that Johnson's behavior was not outside the range of normal reactions to police questioning — is a finding of fact, which we review only for clear error. See Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d at 1129. The record indicates that Johnson was acting fidgety, that he continuously glanced around, and that he repeatedly depressed the transmission button on his walkie-talkie. But as the district court noted, we have recognized that even innocent people can display some nervousness when being questioned by police. See United States v. Salzano, 158 F.3d 1107, 1113 (10th Cir.1998). Though Johnson's nervous behavior might suggest he had something to hide, we cannot say the district court committed clear error in characterizing it as within the range of behavior that an innocent person might exhibit under similar circumstances. 31 The district court's decision that this means Johnson's behavior was not part of the totality of the circumstances, however, is an incorrect application of the law. We have held that typical nervousness alone cannot support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and is of limited significance, and that courts should discount the detaining officer's reliance on the detainee's nervousness. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Conduct that may be wholly innocent may nonetheless support a finding of reasonable suspicion in certain circumstances. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9-10, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). For that reason, we have also made clear that nervousness, even if it may be a normal reaction, is still among the pertinent factors a reasonable law enforcement officer would analyze in investigating possible crimes, and should not be completely disregarded. See United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 948 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1268-69 (10th Cir.2001). Discounting something is not the same as disregarding it, as bargain-hunters responding to advertisements for discounted prices will discover. The district court therefore erred in not including Johnson's behavior in the totality of the circumstances.