Inouye

MEMORANDUM *

Inouye asserts that Honolulu police officer Michael Kemna searched him in violation of the Fourth Amendment, leading to an invalid arrest. 1 On August 1, 2005, the district court granted summary judgment against Inouye. Our review is de novo, Blankenhom v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir.2007), and we must make all inferences of fact in favor of the non-moving party, Inouye. Id. So construed, the pertinent facts are: On June 7, 2001, Inouye refused to leave his hotel room after check-out time and Officer Kemna *917 was summoned. Inouye emerged from his room with red, glassy eyes and appeared to Kemna to be on drugs or mentally ill. His hands were thrust into his pockets, leading Kemna to attempt to frisk him. After Inouye repeatedly attempted to evade this frisk, Kemna reached into Inouye’s pockets, found a glass methamphetamine pipe, and arrested him. Assuming these facts, we affirm.

Because Inouye’s reaction to the attempted frisk ultimately led to his arrest, Kemna must first be able to show he had reasonable suspicion justifying his attempt to frisk Inouye. Kemna “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with…