United States v. Scott Reidy

MEMORANDUM

Scott Steven Reidy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful traffic stop. Specifically, Reidy argues that the deputy sheriff who stopped his vehicle lacked reasonable suspicion to do so. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, including the specific question of whether reasonable suspicion existed under the circumstances. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 275 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002); United States v. Decoud, 456 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir.2006). The underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191 , 1196 n. 7 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court did not err in concluding that the deputy sheriff had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the vehicle Reidy was driving. To conduct a lawful investigatory stop of a person or vehicle, an officer must have reasonable suspicion, based on the totality of the circumstances, to believe that criminal activi ty is occurring or will occur. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 274 , 122 S.Ct. 744 . Here, two…