Watts
United States v. Watts
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Marvin Watts entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, after the district court denied his motion to suppress the gun found pursuant to a search incident to arrest. Watts claims that the investigative detention that led to the arrest was not based on reasonable suspicion, violating his Fourth Amendment rights under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Therefore, Watts insists, the evidence should have been suppressed. We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence de novo, United States v. Michael R., 90 F.3d 340, 345 (9th Cir.1996), and underlying findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Kim, 25 F.3d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm.
For an investigative detention, or “Terry stop” to be justified, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 392 U.S. at 21 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 . The “reasonable suspicion” standard is a lower standard than the probable cause necessary to justify an arrest, but it requires more than a mere “hunch.” United States v.…
Concurring Opinion
Rawlinson, J.
concurring.
I concur in the result.