Court Opinion

ID: 9487316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:13:56.417557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:12.791492
License: Public Domain

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The government appeals from the district court’s granting of Mr. Lemos’ motion to suppress evidence obtained incident to a search of his luggage. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and we reverse for further proceedings.
We have concluded that this appeal should be remanded in light of United States v. *514Little, 18 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir.1994) (en banc), insofar as the factors evaluated by the district court do not constitute a nonconsensual encounter as a matter of law. See id. at 1504-05. We do note our agreement with the district court’s conclusion that reasonable suspicion did not exist when Agent Candela-ria began questioning Mr. Lemos. See United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616, 621 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Bloom, 975 F.2d 1447, 1458 (10th Cir.1992).
On remand, the district court should consider whether there existed a sufficient level of individualized suspicion necessary to seize Mr. Lemos’s luggage. This inquiry should include whether this incident was really commenced by a search, whatever thereafter developed, requiring probable cause, as discussed in Judge Seth’s concurring opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.