Opinion ID: 221152
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timing of the Pat-Down Search

Text: When Agent Basset performed a nonconsensual pat-down of Chavez’s person, the encounter likely became a seizure. See United States v. Crandell, 554 F.3d 79, 88 n.7 (3d Cir. 2009) (“An officer must place his hands on an individual to conduct a pat-down search, which leads logically to the contention that this act constitutes a seizure.”); United States v. Davis, 202 F.3d 1060, 1062 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Terry leaves no doubt that a patdown search is a seizure.”). Chavez contends that Agent Basset actually conducted two pat-downs, one after discovering the wine and one after learning of the “warrant” from EPIC. According to Chavez, because the first pat-down occurred right before Agent Basset asked for his identification, Chavez was detained at the time he handed over his passport. 15 The transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress contains very little testimony regarding the pat-down issue. In fact, the subject of the pat-down came up only briefly during defense counsel’s cross-examination of Agent Basset. Defense counsel initially asked Agent Basset if he conducted a pat-down of Chavez. Agent Basset responded, “Yes, sir, I believe I did.” (ROA, vol. III at 37.) Later, defense counsel asked Agent Basset when he performed the pat-down. Agent Basset said, “I did the pat-down after I was informed by EPIC that there was some form of warrant and after [Chavez] told me that the red wine was not the reason that he was upset or was nervous.” (Id. at 41 (emphasis added).) Chavez reads this language as unequivocally indicating that Agent Basset conducted two pat-downs. In other words, Chavez construes the word “and” as suggesting that a separate pat-down occurred after the discovery of the red wine and after Agent Basset spoke with EPIC. We believe that Agent Basset’s testimony can be interpreted in a different way that is arguably more natural and consistent with ordinary understandings of syntax. Specifically, one could read Agent Basset’s testimony to indicate that Agent Basset performed one pat-down and that he did so after both of the events mentioned. This interpretation finds support in Agent’s Basset’s opening phrase: “I did the pat-down . . . .” The use of the word “the” followed by the word “pat-down” in the singular form implies that Agent Basset conducted only one pat-down. In any event, we need not evaluate the relative reasonableness of the competing interpretations of Agent Basset’s testimony. One reasonable view of the evidence is that 16 Agent Basset conducted a single pat-down after learning about the “warrant” from EPIC. That interpretation allows us to conclude that the encounter remained consensual until Agent Basset acquired probable cause to detain Chavez, which in turn leads to the conclusion that the district court correctly determined that Agent Basset did not learn Chavez’s identity as a result of an unlawful seizure. For purposes of this appeal, we need go no further. See Broomfield, 201 F.3d at 1273.