United States v. Fiseku, 915 F.3d 863

Around 1:15–1:25 a.m. in a remote, tree-lined parking lot in Bedford, NY, Officer Gruppuso encountered a white Nissan Pathfinder whose occupants gave inconsistent accounts about why they were there.
Gruppuso suspected possible criminal activity (potential home invasion) given the late hour, remote location, and timing of the vehicle’s arrival; he called for backup.
Within minutes two additional officers arrived, the three men were patted down, separated, and handcuffed for officer safety while officers questioned them.
Officers searched the vehicle and found items (e.g., replica firearms, stun gun, police insignia, duct tape) that supplied probable cause to arrest.
The district court suppressed the suspects’ statements (Miranda custodial-interrogation violation) but denied suppression of the physical evidence, finding the handcuffing during the investigatory stop reasonable.
Defendant Fiseku pleaded guilty conditionally, reserved the right to appeal the denial of suppression and to assert ineffective assistance claims; he appealed the denial of suppression and raised ineffective assistance concerning career-offender designation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether handcuffing during the investigatory stop transformed the Terry stop into a de facto arrest requiring probable cause and suppression of physical evidence	Fiseku: handcuffs converted the stop into an arrest without probable cause; evidence should be suppressed	Government: officers had reasonable, objective grounds to restrain the men briefly for officer safety in a remote, late-night, rapidly evolving situation; handcuffs were proportionate and brief	Court: handcuffing was reasonable under the circumstances and did not ripen the stop into an arrest; physical evidence admissible
Whether appellate review should resolve defendant's ineffective-assistance claim about career-offender challenge	Fiseku: counsel was ineffective for not arguing that his Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a "crime of violence" under Guidelines §4B1.2	Government: (implicitly) claim better addressed on collateral review; record undeveloped and legal question unsettled in this Circuit	Court: decline to decide ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal; allow renewal via §2255 where record can be developed

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing reasonable-suspicion investigatory stops)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
United States v. Bailey, 743 F.3d 322 (2d Cir.) (handcuffing during Terry stop found unreasonable)
United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir.) (factors for de facto arrest analysis)
Grice v. McVeigh, 873 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (handcuffs may be permitted in unusual, dangerous circumstances)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (limits on hindsight second-guessing police tactics during evolving stops)
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (officer safety justifies protective measures in vehicle stops)
United States v. Compton, 830 F.3d 55 (2d Cir.) (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory detention)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (burden on government to show seizure limited in scope/duration)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (exclusionary-rule principles discussed)