Opinion ID: 47511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detention/Arrest of Fields

Text: 6 Next, Fields contends his detention constituted an arrest for which a showing of probable cause was necessary. Fields asserts Deputy Bruster’s actions in handcuffing him and placing him in a patrol car were unreasonable because the officer did not have an objective reason to believe he was armed and dangerous after (1) a pat-down of his person revealed no weapons, and (2) a computer check on his Washington license returned negative. “[A]n officer’s investigation of a traffic stop must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’” United States v. Boyce, 351 F.3d 1102, 1106 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Terry, 88 S. Ct. at 1879). “[W]hen the totality of circumstances indicate that an encounter has become too intrusive to be classified as a brief seizure, the encounter is an arrest and probable cause is required.” United States v. Espinosa-Guerra, 805 F.2d 1502, 1506 (11th Cir. 1986). In determining whether a seizure is an arrest or stop, we consider the following four non-exclusive factors: (1) the law enforcement purposes served by the detention; (2) the diligence with which the police pursued their investigation; (3) the scope and intrusiveness of the detention; and (4) the duration of the detention. United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1146 (11th Cir. 2004). In analyzing whether law enforcement purposes are served by the detention, we consider whether the officer detained the defendant to pursue a 7 method of investigation likely to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions quickly with minimal interference. Id. The fact the investigation could have been accomplished by less intrusive means does not automatically render a Terry stop unreasonable. United States v. Sharpe, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1575-76 (1985). An officer’s action in handcuffing a defendant or securing him in a patrol car does not automatically convert a Terry stop into an arrest. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1147. The inquiry as to whether the use of a particular restraint converts a stop into an arrest is reasonableness. United States v. Kapperman, 764 F.2d 786, 791 n.4 (11th Cir. 1985). Police are permitted to take reasonable action to protect themselves or to maintain the status quo. Id. The district court did not err in treating Fields’ detention as a Terry stop, as opposed to an arrest, because Deputy Bruster’s actions in handcuffing Fields and placing him in his patrol car were reasonable under the circumstances. We have recognized that “[d]rug dealing is known to be extremely violent.” United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 1221 (11th Cir. 1993). In light of the nature of the suspected offense, it was reasonable for Deputy Bruster to believe Fields was going to pull out a weapon when Fields reached for his back pocket while walking away. Moreover, Deputy Bruster’s action in handcuffing Fields was reasonably necessary to preserve the status quo. Given Fields’ behavior in ignoring 8 Deputy Bruster and walking away when Deputy Bruster attempted to engage him in conversation, Deputy Bruster could have reasonably believed restraining Fields was necessary to prevent him from escaping so that Deputy Bruster could conduct his investigation. Deputy Bruster claims to have placed Fields in the patrol car because it was raining. An officer’s action in placing a defendant in a patrol car due to weather conditions does not convert the officer’s Terry stop into an arrest. Thomas v. Newsome, 821 F.2d 1550, 1554 (11th Cir. 1987) (habeas context). Deputy Bruster’s action in placing Fields in the patrol car was reasonable to ensure the officer’s safety and to provide for Fields’ comfort. Moreover, any belief by Fields that he was being arrested would have been dispelled by Deputy Bruster repeatedly informing Fields that he was not under arrest. The other factors considered by courts in determining if a detention is a stop or an arrest also weigh in the Government’s favor. Deputy Bruster had reasonable suspicion to believe Fields was involved in a serious crime, and pursued a method of investigation likely to confirm or dispel his suspicions quickly. See Acosta, 363 F.3d at 1146. After obtaining Fields’ licenses, Deputy Bruster checked quickly to see if the licenses were valid and if Fields had any warrants showing a background in narcotics-related activities. An officer may ask a suspect to identify himself or 9 request to see a suspect’s identification during the course of a Terry stop. See Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d at 1221. There is no indication from the record that Deputy Bruster did not conduct his investigation with diligence, and he detained Fields for no more than ten minutes before issuing a formal arrest. Moreover, he issued a formal arrest immediately after determining he had probable cause to arrest Fields due to Fields’ suspended license. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding Fields’ detention reasonable.