Opinion ID: 6334236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Second Pat-Down

Text: After the initial pat-down, Officer Holden asked Smith and Naylor to walk over to the police car so he could see them while running their names through a law-enforcement database. In the process, Officer Holden observed Smith’s unusual side-to-side walk and saw Smith resting his pelvis on the front of the police car. When Officer Holden completed the database search, he asked Smith to walk with him back to Naylor’s car. Smith continued to brush off Officer Holden’s questions about what he was hiding. That’s when Officer Holden performed the second pat-down. On these facts, the second pat-down was reasonable. Officer Holden had seen Smith walk twice between the cars, repeatedly rest his pelvis against the cars as if to prop something up, and continue to appear unusually nervous. An officer in those circumstances could reasonably infer that Smith was hiding a weapon in his pants. Cf. United States v. Weaver, 9 F.4th 129, 147 (2d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (holding that reasonable suspicion supported frisk where defendant repeatedly made “suspicious movements concentrated around his waist and pelvis, where a firearm might easily be concealed,” including pressing his pelvis against the vehicle). The second pat-down was also tailored to the situation and minimally invasive: Officer Holden’s body-cam video shows that he 8 No. 21-1266 simply shook Smith’s pant legs to see if something would fall out. Smith protests that Officer Holden could not have actually believed he was hiding a weapon because, before the second pat-down, Officer Holden offered to uncuff one of Smith’s hands so he could retrieve whatever was in his pants. In Smith’s view, no reasonable officer would uncuff a person who the officer believed was armed and dangerous. Although this argument has some force, we reject it for two reasons. First, Officer Holden need not have been certain that Smith was hiding a weapon as opposed to drugs or other contraband before conducting the second pat-down. See Ford, 872 F.3d at 414–15; United States v. Brown, 188 F.3d 860, 866 (7th Cir. 1999). What matters is whether a reasonable officer would fear for his safety at that moment in time. Second, even if Officer Holden suspected that Smith was merely hiding drugs, an officer’s subjective beliefs are irrelevant to the reasonable suspicion inquiry; courts ask whether, in light of the facts available to the officer at the time, a reasonable officer would have believed that the person was armed and dangerous. See United States v. Patton, 705 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). As explained above, the answer to that question is yes.