United States v. Mason

MEMORANDUM *

Ronnie Lee Mason appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, following which a jury convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The facts of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

The crux of Mason’s argument is that he was seized, making his consent involuntary. We conclude, however, that Mason was not seized until after he was searched and the firearm was recovered. A seizure occurs when “taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” Id. (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)). Relevant factors include: “(1) the number of officers; (2) whether weapons were displayed; (3) whether the encounter occurred in a public or non-public setting; (4) whether the officer’s tone or manner was authoritative, so as to imply that…