Opinion ID: 170367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Investigatory Detentions

Text: We analyze investigatory detentions under a two-part framework developed in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and its progeny. The reasonableness of an investigatory detention depends on “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 20). The detention is justified at its inception “if the officer’s action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot.” United -7- States v. Quintana-Garcia, 343 F.3d 1266, 1270 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)) (internal quotation omitted). To “determin[e] whether an investigatory stop is supported by reasonable suspicion, courts must ‘look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.’” Id. (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273) (internal quotations omitted). The focus on the totality of the circumstances, rather than each individual circumstance, underscores that “a court may not engage in a ‘sort of divide-and-conquer analysis’ by evaluating and rejecting each factor in isolation.” United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216, 1221 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 267). “This process allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quotation omitted). Quantitatively, reasonable suspicion means something less than probable cause and “falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274). In other words, all that reasonable suspicion requires is “some minimal level of objective justification.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quotation omitted). And while a mere hunch is not enough, the detaining officer need not rule out innocent explanations before concluding the totality of information -8- known to the officer, combined with experience, supports a brief investigatory detention. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274, 277; Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7, 10.