Opinion ID: 3029843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: reasonable suspicion to detain and

Text: QUESTION [1] The parties assume, as we do, that Mayo was detained at least by the time that Officer Golden took Mayo’s driver’s license and walked back to his patrol car with it. We conclude that this detention and its limited extension was supported by reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that Mayo was engaging in criminal activity. See, e.g., United States v. Michael R., 90 F.3d 340, 346 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating standard for reasonable suspicion).6 Before detaining and questioning Mayo, officers knew the following: four vehicles, including Mayo’s, arrived in the motel parking lot in tandem; the occupants of the vehicles gathered around the silver Dodge Caravan; the driver of the Caravan handed a package to the driver of the Firebird; the driver of the Chevrolet truck then wiped down the steering wheel and driver’s side door handle with a shirt or rag, and then he walked away carrying 5 The district court did not stay Mayo’s sentence, so he presumably has now served the incarceration portion. 6 We review de novo the question whether the officers had reasonable suspicion for the detention. Michael R., 90 F.3d at 345-46. 738 UNITED STATES v. MAYO a maroon backpack; and after this “transaction,” the occupants (save Mayo) left the area.7 Moreover, this meeting took place in a high-crime area and in front of a motel that hosted previous narcotics activity. See, e.g., United States v. DiazJuarez, 299 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that presence in a high—crime area is relevant to a reasonable suspicion analysis). [2] We reject Mayo’s contention that his detention was based on mere presence in the vicinity of suspicious activity. Mayo relies on Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1980), which held that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain and search a defendant solely because of his presence in a tavern in which the officers suspected the bartender dealt heroin. Unlike Ybarra, however, Mayo clearly interacted with the other participants during the suspicious activity. The officers therefore had reasonable suspicion to detain and question Mayo when they arrived on the scene.