Opinion ID: 168860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: l awfulness of d etention

Text: On appeal, Mr. Murphy concedes that he voluntarily pulled over and that Officer Weir permissibly approached his vehicle, asked questions, and requested information. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200 (2002) (“Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen.”). Neither Mr. Murphy nor the government, however, pinpoint the precise moment when the initially consensual encounter became an involuntary detention. Thus, we adopt the view of the district court that Mr. Murphy was detained within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when Officer Weir returned from his patrol car and resumed his questioning. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), an officer may briefly detain an individual for investigatory purposes without violating the Fourth Amendment “when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). We analyze an investigative detention by employing a “two-part test.” United States v. West, 219 F.3d -6- 1171, 1176 (10th Cir. 2000). First, we ask whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion. Second, we ask whether the detention was reasonable in scope and duration. Id. The district court concluded that Officer Weir and the other officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Murphy based on the following factual findings: Mr. Murphy “lied” to Officer Weir “about . . . prowling without his lights in an area where there were a number of vehicles parked,” Rec. vol. III, doc. 55, at 7; the vehicle “was registered in the name of different person,” id. at 10; Mr. Murphy had multiple prior contacts with law enforcement and was a member of a “very dangerous and violent, active gang,” id. at 8; and Mr. Murphy was in the company of a felon with warrants out who “would have been a confederate to any burglary that was involved with the defendant,” id. at 10. Mr. Murphy first challenges several of the district court’s factual findings. He then argues that his detention was neither supported by reasonable suspicion nor reasonable in scope, thereby rendering the firearm the fruit of an illegal detention.
“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is without factual support in the record or if [we], after reviewing all the evidence, [are] left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Manning v. United States, 146 F.3d 808, 812 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we are not convinced that any of the district court’s findings -7- lack factual support, nor are we persuaded that a mistake was made. For the sake of judicial economy, we do not address each of Mr. Murphy’s challenges separately. We note, however, that each of the district court’s findings was properly drawn from the uncontradicted testimony of Officers Weir, Gibson, and Seward. We therefore accept the district court’s factual findings.
Reasonable suspicion is a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). In analyzing the presence of reasonable suspicion, we examine the totality of the circumstances and consider both the factors weighing for and against the existence of reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1316 (10th Cir. 2006). We do not scrutinize each factor in isolation; we evaluate the factors en masse to discern whether, “viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer,” there was a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 695-96 (internal quotation marks omitted). We hold that, from an objective standpoint, a reasonable officer standing in the shoes of Officer Weir could articulate numerous reasons for suspecting Mr. Murphy of criminal activity, namely vehicle burglary or theft. Before detaining Mr. Murphy, Officer Weir knew the following: Mr. Murphy had been in the parking lot of a closed business at nearly 1 a.m. and the business stored unattended vehicles in its parking lot; Mr. Murphy insisted he had only used the business’s parking lot to turn around and follow a friend’s -8- truck even though that was inconsistent with Officer Weir’s own observations; and Mr. Murphy failed to provide a driver’s license or any documentation linking himself to the vehicle. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 F.3d 993, 1002 (7th Cir. 2003) (vehicle “parked at [an early] hour of the morning behind a closed business” supports reasonable suspicion of a burglary); United States v. Moore, 22 F.3d 241, 243-44 (10th Cir. 1994) (a suspect’s lying to officers supports reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 879 (10th Cir. 1994) (“the defendant’s lack of a valid registration, license, bill of sale, or some other indicia of proof to lawfully operate and possess the vehicle in question, . . . giv[es] rise to objectively reasonable suspicion that the vehicle may be stolen.”). Moreover, Mr. Murphy’s conduct took place in a neighborhood known for its high incidence of automobile thefts and burglaries. See United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2005) (“presence in a high crime area” supports determination of reasonable suspicion) (quoting Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124). Mr. Murphy essentially argues that any reasonable suspicion of a vehicle theft dissipated once Officer Weir returned to his car and learned that (1) “[t]he vehicle was not reported stolen,” (2) Mr. Murphy truthfully provided Officer Weir “with the name of, and the nature of his relationship with, the registered owner of the vehicle,” and (3) the vehicle did not exhibit “any signs of vandalism that are common with stolen and/or burglarized vehicles.” Aplt’s Br. at 16. We disagree. As an initial matter, the fact that the vehicle had not been reported -9- stolen is irrelevant because Officer Weir’s observations would have led a reasonable officer to suspect that Mr. Murphy could have stolen the vehicle moments prior to detaining him. While it is true that Mr. Murphy correctly identified Ms. Wheelright as the registered owner and that the car did not bear any signs of vandalism, these facts are not particularly ameliorative given the assortment of suspicious factors in this case. Indeed, if anything, the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity increased as the detention progressed because Officer Weir’s initial suspicions never abated and additional suspicious circumstances came to light. First, while at his car, Officer Weir discovered Mr. Murphy was a gang member with a significant arrest record. United States v. Feliciano, 45 F.3d 1070, 1074 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[G]ang association and recent relevant criminal conduct, while of doubtful evidentiary value in view of the strictures against proving guilt by association or by a predisposition based on past criminal acts, is a permissible component of the articulable suspicion required for a Terry stop.”). Several minutes later, the police discovered that Mr. Murphy’s passenger, Mr. Baxter, had lied about his name and had two outstanding warrants for his arrest. See Dennison, 410 F.3d at 1212-13 (outstanding warrants for passenger’s arrest supports determination of reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety); Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 304-05 (“[A] car passenger . . . will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or evidence of their wrongdoing.”). Finally, the officers, despite their attempts to contact the vehicle’s registered owner, were not able to confirm that Mr. Murphy had permission to possess it. -10- The officers therefore had reasonable suspicion to detain and question Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy alternatively argues that “his hour-plus detention” was unreasonable because it exceeded the permissible scope of an investigatory detention and evolved into a de facto arrest. Aplt’s Br. at 16. An investigative detention may become an arrest if it lasts for an unreasonably long time. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985). There are, however, no “hard-and-fast time limits” for an investigative detention, United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 543 (1985), and, in determining a detention’s validity, we must “consider the law enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes.” Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 685. Accordingly, “[i]n assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, we . . . examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” Id. at 686. Here, nothing in the record indicates that the officers were dilatory in carrying out their on-the-scene investigation. From questioning Mr. Murphy to attempting to contact Ms. Wheelright at the motel, the officers’ investigatory acts proceeded in a logical sequence. Furthermore, according to Officer Gibson’s uncontradicted account, the officers were “still trying to investigate” whether Mr. Murphy had permission to have the vehicle following Mr. Baxter’s arrest. Rec. vol. II, at 68. Nothing in the record indicates -11- that the officers were doing otherwise when the firearms were discovered. Mr. Murphy argues that the length of his detention was unreasonable by suggesting that the officers should have “traveled back up the road a half a block to investigate the automobiles” at Kwik City Muffler. Aplt’s Br. at 16-17. In hindsight, this might have been one way for the officers to approach the investigation; nevertheless, the officers’ decision not to go to Kwik City Muffler does not discredit the approach they actually employed. Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686-87 (“A creative judge engaged in post hoc evaluation of police conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished. But the fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by less intrusive means does not, itself, render the search unreasonable.”) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Mr. Murphy’s detention was reasonable in scope. Accordingly, we hold that Mr. Murphy’s detention did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.