Background

• Officer stopped Burleson and two companions for walking in the middle of the street and carrying an unleashed dog.
• After obtaining names, the officer ran a warrants check which indicated an outstanding warrant for Burleson.
• The officer arrested Burleson on the warrant; a pat-down yielded two handguns and ammunition.
• The district court suppressed the firearms as fruit of an unlawful detention because the warrants check extended the stop beyond its purpose.
• The government appealed, arguing Villagrana-Flores permits warrants checks during a lawful detention; the circuit reversed and remanded.
• The decision focuses on whether the warrants check was conducted during a valid Terry stop and whether officer safety or other reasons justified the continuation of the detention.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Villagrana-Flores, 467 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006) (permits warrants check during a pedestrian Terry stop for safety and investigatory purposes)
• United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001) (allowing brief detention to run background checks in motorist stops (en banc))
• United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2009) (driver license/registration checks may occur during stop; must end when information gathering is complete)
• United States v. Lyons, 510 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes cases where suspicion evaporates vs. actual violation; warrants check permissible when violation exists)
• United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes between consent/consensual stops and non-consensual stops; warrants check may be improper when no reasonable suspicion exists)
• Luckett v. United States, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973) (warrants check extended detention without reasonable suspicion)
• Terry v. Ohio, (supra) (supreme) (establishes investigatory stops must be reasonably related to the initial purpose)