Jones

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Donnie Lee Jones (“Jones”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (West 2000). Jones claims that the district court erred in denying his motions to: (1) suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to an investigatory stop by the police; and (2) substitute counsel. We affirm.

Jones contends that his seizure by police officers at the Chase Suites Hotel (“the hotel”) was not an investigatory stop, but rather a full-blown arrest unsupported by probable cause. 3 There is no bright-line rule that distinguishes a “Terry stop” from a de facto arrest. Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir.1996). Instead, the court must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” by weighing the level of intrusiveness of the stop and the degree to which it restricted the defendant’s liberty against “the inherent danger of the situation”; i.e., whether the police officers had reason to fear for their safety. Id. at 1185-87 ; United States v. Alvarez, 899 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir.1990) (noting that “a police officer may take reasonable measures to neutralize the risk of physical harm and to determine…