Harlson

MEMORANDUM **

Leon Harlson appeals his conviction following a conditional guilty plea, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Harlson first argues that his initial detention was unreasonable. For an investigatory stop to be justified under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” which, taken together with rational inferences to be drawn from those facts, reasonably warrant an officer’s intrusion upon a suspect’s person. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Officer Tucker knew of the following facts at the time he detained Harlson: (1) Harlson was present in a high-crime area during an unusual hour; (2) Harlson was outside a business establishment that appeared to be closed; (3) Harlson had the screen door to the business establishment propped open; (4) Harlson had moved between the business establishment and his vehicle multiple times; and (5) Harlson had watched Officer Tucker “very closely” as Officer Tucker drove by. These facts, taken together, were sufficient to justify a Terry stop. See United…