United States v. James Brown, 996 F.3d 998

El Cajon PD officers approached two men (Brown and Barlett) sitting on a low cinder-block wall behind a U-Haul in an Econo Lodge parking lot after a motel report of two “transients” (one seen urinating).
Officers initially engaged in a casual, daylight, public encounter lasting ~7 minutes; Barlett fit the urinating suspect description and had visible needle marks and other suspicious indicators; Brown did not match the urination description.
During questioning Brown took a phone call and otherwise appeared cooperative; officers developed reasonable suspicion of a possible drug transaction between Brown and Barlett.
Officer Wining observed Brown move his right hand toward his right pocket, ordered Brown to stand and turn, restrained his arms, and—without performing a patdown—reached into Brown’s pocket and removed a plastic bag that Wining identified as heroin.
District court denied Brown’s suppression motion; Brown was convicted of possession with intent to distribute; on appeal the Ninth Circuit concluded the seizure was justified but the pocket search exceeded Terry’s scope and reversed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Brown's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Brown was seized without reasonable suspicion	Encounter ripened into seizure earlier and lacked particularized reasonable suspicion	Encounter was consensual until officer ordered Brown to stand; by that time officers had reasonable suspicion of drug activity	Seizure occurred when officer ordered Brown to stand; by then reasonable suspicion existed (Terry stop valid)
Whether the officer’s search exceeded the scope of a Terry frisk	Immediate reach into pocket (no patdown) violated Terry/Sibron; evidence must be suppressed	Protective search justified; initial pocket search allowed in some circumstances and here was reasonable	Officer had basis to frisk, but immediately extracting and examining an item from pocket without an initial patdown exceeded Terry and Sibron; suppression required

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stop and limited frisk when officer has reasonable suspicion and safety concerns)
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (holds immediate pocket search without a prior patdown exceeds Terry’s protective-search scope)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (frisk may not be manipulated into an evidentiary search; manipulating pocket contents beyond weapon-detection is unlawful)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual-encounter test: person must feel free to decline police requests)
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (officer may reach to a particular spot to retrieve a weapon when specific information indicates location and danger)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion is based on totality of the circumstances and officer’s experience)
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable-suspicion requires a particularized, objective basis to suspect wrongdoing)