United States v. Mikelle Pennington

facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for

suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.’”

United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We

review determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause de novo.

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996).

The government argues the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe

2 Pennington violated California Vehicle Code § 21955, which provides: “Between

adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police

officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a

crosswalk.” The district court correctly rejected the government’s argument. Even

on Deputy Miller’s version of events, Pennington’s conduct would not necessarily

violate § 21955. As the district court recognized, the evidence did not “establish[]

that the relevant intersections on Cedar Street had traffic control devices.” The

government’s contention that stop signs constitute traffic control devices is refuted

by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 102 P.2d 317,

319 (Cal.…