CA10: Stop at 2:45 am in normally unoccupied industrial area known for break-ins was reasonable; body cam resolves credibility

Defendant was stopped at 2:45 a.m. walking in an industrial area where there were no houses and usually no people, but a rash of burglaries. He was carrying a bag and calling his girlfriend on a cell phone to pick him up. The entire interaction was caught on the officer’s body cam. When the officer stopped him, he put down a black bag and walked toward the officer, apparently distancing himself from the bag. The girlfriend showed up being followed by another police officer, and she succeeded in acquiring the bag and putting it in her car without the officers noticing. When the bag was asked about, she admitted having it, and attempted to pass off another bag as the one, which the officer caught. Ultimately she consented to a search of the car, and guns were visible, the butt of one sticking out of the bag. The stop was reasonable under Terry. The guns came back stolen, and it turned out the guns were stolen by defendant in a gun store burglary in Missouri. United States v. Fonseca, 744 F.3d 674 (10th Cir. 2014):

We hold that the scope of the detention was reasonable under all of the circumstances of this case. As an initial matter, we see nothing clearly erroneous in the district court’s factual findings that Defendant’s answers to Officer Reynolds’ questions were “sketchy and suspicious” and that his “mannerisms and actions and the presence of Ms. White’s car added to the suspiciousness of the situation.” (R. Vol. 1 at 175.) Defendant argues the court erred in reaching these conclusions when Officer Reynolds did not explicitly characterize Defendant’s answers or mannerisms as suspicious. However, the court viewed the video recording of the encounter and could permissibly make its own factual determinations regarding the suspiciousness of Defendant’s actions and communications with the officer. After reviewing this recording and Officer Reynolds’ testimony, we see no reason to overturn the court’s factual findings.

Particularly in light of these findings, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for Officer Reynolds to continue to detain Defendant for the approximately ten minutes that passed after he finished questioning Defendant and before he learned of Defendant’s current warrant. The detention was first prolonged by the officer’s efforts to track down the bag Defendant had been carrying earlier. This conduct was reasonably related in scope to the goals of the stop. Officer Reynolds first observed Defendant carrying a bag while walking alone in a high-crime industrial area in the middle of the night. After the officer identified himself and asked to speak with Defendant, Defendant walked on a little further and placed the bag on the ground before walking back toward the officer, and it appeared to Officer Reynolds that Defendant was attempting to distance himself from the bag. When the bag then disappeared from the ground where Defendant had left it, Officer Reynolds reasonably decided to investigate where the bag had gone and what it might contain. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, reasonable suspicion did not dissipate when Defendant claimed he did not own the blue denim bag Ms. White falsely identified as the bag Defendant had been carrying with him that night. It was quite reasonable for Officer Reynolds to question why Defendant was supposedly carrying around his girlfriend’s friend’s purse as he walked alone in the high-crime area at night, and neither Defendant’s nor Kaylin’s responses to the officer’s questions did anything to reduce the suspiciousness of the situation. At this point, it was reasonable for Officer Reynolds to spend a few minutes asking Ms. White about the events of that evening and about the other individuals’ identities. We are persuaded this conduct was reasonably related in scope to the goals of the stop.

Then, in light of the overall suspiciousness of the situation, it was not unreasonable for Officer Reynolds to spend a few more minutes verifying with dispatch that Defendant was who he purported to be. …