F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
April 9, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-5163
v. (N.D. Oklahoma)
CH RISTOPHER M ICH AEL (D.C. No. 06-CR-45-HDC)
H ELTO N,
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, SE YM OU R, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. **
In M ay 2006, Christopher M ichael Helton pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and
924(a). M r. Helton entered into a plea agreement after the district court denied
his m otion to suppress the evidence that served as the basis of this conviction. H e
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 34.1(G ).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
reserved the right to raise this appeal. W e exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. F ACTS
The district court found the following with regard to M r. Helton’s arrest:
The District Court of Tulsa County issued a felony arrest warrant for
Lisa Spiegal. 1 On January 9, 2006, Duane Guthrie, a bail bond recovery
agent, contacted Tulsa Police Officer M ark Kennedy and related that
Guthrie had seen M s. Spiegal exit a dark Ford truck and enter the
residence at 23 North Louisville Avenue in Tulsa. Kennedy knew
G uthrie, had relied on information Guthrie gave him in the past, and
had never known Guthrie to give unreliable information. Kennedy, a
member of the Northern O klahoma Fugitive Task Force, had a file in
his vehicle that contained Spiegal’s picture, descriptive information,
and a copy of her outstanding warrant. . . . At the scene, Guthrie
identified a dark Ford truck with tinted w indows in the driveway of the
residence as the same truck from which Spiegal exited. Kennedy
surveilled the residence with binoculars. Kennedy saw a woman whom
he believed to be Spiegal sitting on the passenger side of the dark Ford
truck with tinted windows.
Defendant Helton exited the residence, entered the dark Ford truck, and
drove away with the woman. Officer Kennedy followed the truck in an
unmarked vehicle and around the 800 block of North Louisville turned
on his emergency equipment. Helton did not immediately stop, so
Kennedy briefly turned on his vehicle’s siren. Helton turned into the
drivew ay of 802 North Louisville, exited the truck, and walked tow ard
the residence. Kennedy exited his vehicle, observed that Helton
appeared nervous, and asked Helton to raise his hands. Helton did not
comply and continued walking toward the residence, his right hand in
1
M s. Spiegel is also sometimes referred to as M s. Lisa Batt, which is
apparently an alias. W e also note that the district court spells M s. Spiegel’s name
with an “a” but the government and M r. Helton spell it with an “e” (Spiegel). It
is not clear w hich is correct.
2
his pocket. Kennedy again asked Helton to raise his hands. H elton
continued to walk away with his left hand raised. Using his right hand,
Helton rem oved a .32 caliber handgun and a glass smoking pipe from
his w aistband and threw both into a bush. Helton then raised both
hands and at Kennedy’s command laid on the ground.
After arresting Helton, Kennedy determined that the truck’s passenger
was not Lisa Spiegal. . . .
Dist. Ct. Order at 1-2 (emphasis supplied) (internal quotation marks omitted).
B. D ISTRICT C OURT D ECISION AND I SSUES ON A PPEAL
The district court concluded that both the initial traffic stop and the
detention of M r. Helton were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court
observed that M r. Guthrie was a proven and reliable informant and that Officer
Kennedy made every effort to make an accurate identification. Thus, under the
totality of the circumstances O fficer Kennedy’s reliance on the warrant for M s.
Spiegel’s arrest was both objectively reasonable and in good faith. Therefore, the
fact that he was ultimately mistaken about the passenger’s identity did not
invalidate the stop.
The district court also found that M r. Helton was subject to two separate
seizures. The first was the traffic stop. However, the district court concluded
that the initial seizure terminated “[w]hen [M r.] Helton ignored Officer Kennedy
and walked aw ay.” Id. at 3. According to the district court, the second seizure
occurred when M r. Helton was placed under arrest after Officer K ennedy saw him
fling a pistol and a glass smoking device into the bushes, thereby creating
3
probable cause. Alternatively, the court found that, even if the entire interaction
constituted a seizure, “[c]onsiderations of officer safety” rendered it reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 4.
M r. Helton reserved the right to appeal (1) whether the initial stop of his
vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion; and (2) whether he continued to
be seized under the Fourth Amendment after he began to walk away from the
scene of the stop.
II. D ISC USSIO N
A. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW
“W hen reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the government, accept the district court’s findings
of fact unless clearly erroneous, and review de novo the ultimate determination of
reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Katoa, 379 F.3d
1203, 1205 (10th Cir. 2004).
B. T HE T RAFFIC S TOP
The Fourth Amendment provides: “The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no W arrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U .S. Const. amend. IV .
Because it is a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a traffic stop
4
must be reasonable. United States v. Taverna, 348 F.3d 873, 877 (10th Cir. 2003).
In order to assess the reasonableness of a traffic stop, we look to the principles
governing investigative detentions. United States v. Guerrero-Espinoza, 462 F.3d
1302, 1307 (10th Cir. 2006). This court examines the reasonableness of
investigative detention under totality of the circumstances from the perspective of
a reasonable officer. United States v. Quintana-Garcia, 343 F.3d 1266, 1270
(10th Cir. 2003).
It is important to note that the mere fact that M r. Helton’s passenger was
not the individual named in the warrant does not render the initial stop invalid.
Hill v. California, 401 U .S. 797, 804 (1971) (upholding the validity of an arrest
based on a misidentification of the individual in the warrant because “[s]ufficient
probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth
Amendment and on the record before us the officers’ mistake was understandable
and the arrest a reasonable response to the situation facing them at the time.”).
Instead, the stop was valid if Officer Kennedy reasonably relied on that warrant
under the totality of the circumstances.
M r. Helton contends that Officer Kennedy did not have reasonable
suspicion to make the initial traffic stop, in part, because he could not say with
certainty that M s. Spiegel was not still in the house. In addition, M r. Helton
emphasizes that M s. Spiegel’s Department of Corrections photos contain an
ethnic description classifying M s. Spiegel as Native American, and the passenger
5
in M r. Helton’s car was caucasian. He also makes much of the fact that Officer
Kennedy used binoculars to observe the passenger of M r. H elton’s car.
Despite M r. Helton’s contentions, we agree with the district court, which
concluded,
a reliable and disinterested source[] informed Officer Kennedy that he
could find Lisa Spiegal, a person wanted on an outstanding felony
warrant, at a particular location and that she had been the passenger in
a particular vehicle. Officer Kennedy, equipped w ith binoculars, an
arrest warrant, a photograph, and the identifying characteristics of Lisa
Spiegal, believed in good faith that the passenger of the vehicle was
Lisa Spiegal.
Dist. Ct. Order at 4. In short, Officer Kennedy’s identification of the passenger
as M s. Spiegel and his decision to stop the vehicle on the basis of the arrest
warrant were reasonable.
M r. Helton’s argument that Officer Kennedy’s use of binoculars
undermines the reasonability of his reliance on the warrant is unpersuasive. The
implication of M r. Helton’s contention is that if the officer had to use binoculars,
then he was not close enough to the suspect. However, there was no testimony
that Officer Kennedy was unable to see the suspect without binoculars; rather,
Officer K ennedy used binoculars to get a closer look and verify the tip.
M r. Helton’s contentions about M s. Spiegel’s ethnicity are similarly
unavailing. The mere fact that M s. Spiegel’s department of corrections
documents identify her as Native American does not mean that it was
unreasonable for Officer Kennedy to conclude she looked caucasian. W hile the
6
state m ay feel the need to classify people into one ethnicity another, the reality is
that ethnic identity and appearance frequently defy rigid categorization. M any
people w ho identify themselves as A merican Indian may not appear to be full-
blood. In fact, Officer Kennedy’s experience bears out the truth of this
observation: he testified at the suppression hearing that his wife is half Native
American, but that she appears caucasian. Furthermore, it is important to note
that whether M s. Spiegel’s warrant picture and description sufficiently matched
the passenger are questions of fact that this court should not overturn absent clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary. M r. Helton has presented no evidence
that w ould allow us to disturb the district court’s finding.
Finally, M r. Helton’s observation that M r. Guthrie never informed Officer
Kennedy that M s. Spiegel was leaving the house is frivolous. Nothing indicates
that the informant was in a position to relay such information; nor does the
absence of this affirmative declaration on M r. Guthrie’s part give us grounds to
overturn the district court’s conclusion that Officer Kennedy reasonably believed
that the woman in M r. H elton’s vehicle was M s. Spiegel.
C. S EIZURE OF M R . H ELTON F OLLOWING THE T RAFFIC S TOP
The government does not quarrel with M r. Helton’s contention that he was
seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment after he exited the vehicle.
Instead, the government maintains that Officer K ennedy’s reasonable safety
concerns justified the seizure. Accepting the government’s concession for the
7
purposes of this order, we focus only on whether it was reasonable for Officer
Kennedy to order M r. Helton to remain in the vehicle and, once he exited, to
order him to stop walking away and put his hands in the air.
The essence of the officer safety inquiry is whether the officer’s actions
were reasonable in light of the potential threat. United States v. M elendez-
Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046, 1052 (10th Cir. 1994). W e evaluate Officer Kennedy’s
comm and to M r. Helton in light of the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. W illiams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[W]hether an
investigative detention is supported by an objectively reasonable suspicion of
illegal activity turns on our review of the totality of the circumstances.”).
In this case, the totality of the circumstances included a traffic stop on the
basis of an arrest warrant for felony drug charges and M r. Helton’s unusual
decision to walk away from Officer Kennedy with his right hand concealed. The
Supreme Court has observed that an officer faces “inordinate risk . . . as he
approaches a person seated in an automobile.” Pennsylvania v. M imms, 434 U.S.
106, 110 (1977). “Indeed, it appears that a significant percentage of murders of
police officers occurs when the officers are making traffic stops.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). M oreover, in executing an arrest based on probable
cause, officers may temporarily detain a bystander if his or her relationship with
the arrestee is unclear and if reasonable concerns for officer safety justify doing
so. Thompson v. City of Lawrence, 58 F.3d 1511, 1517 (10th Cir. 1995).
8
Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the
district court that
it was reasonable for Officer Kennedy to order Helton to return to the
truck once Helton exited. Helton appeared nervous and his right hand
was obscured from Officer Kennedy’s view. Helton’s actions created
an objectively reasonable apprehension for an officer’s safety during a
traffic stop and therefore an order to return to the car was reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment.
Dist. Ct. Order at 4. Notwithstanding M r. Helton’s attorney’s personal guarantee
that M r. Helton was merely disposing of his firearm in the bushes, it was clearly
reasonable for Officer Kennedy to believe that M r. Helton’s temporary detention
was necessary to ensure his own safety.
III. C ON CLU SIO N
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of M r. Helton’s motion
to suppress.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
9