Case Information
*1 Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Anthоny Jerde appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Because reasonable suspicion supported the initial stop, we affirm.
On August 24, 2010, Des Moines, Iowa, probation officer Kurt Kness, then assigned to the fugitive unit, was looking for a white male fugitive who stood six feet tall and weighed 150 to 160 pounds. Kness had a picture of the woman with whom *2 thе fugitive was believed to be staying and was familiar with the neighborhood where the pair were believed to be.
Kness, who had had some twelve years of law enforcement experience at the time, encountered Jerde walking westbound with а woman towards Kness’s patrol car in the neighborhood the fugitive was thought to be staying. As Kness passed the couple, Jerdе gave Kness “a look like, oh, oh.” Hr’g. Tr. 5. Kness observed that Jerde and the woman matched the descriptions of the fugitive and his female companion. Kness then turned his car around and approached the couple, who had since pаrted and taken the nearest right turn. The couple were then walking north on opposite sides of the street. Kness testified, “It wаs my feeling, based on how he looked at me and the fact that they separated as they walked in a different direction, they were trying to avoid me.” Hr’g. Tr. 6.
Kness exited his vehicle and asked Jerde to provide his name and identification. Kness explained that he was looking for someone who matched Jerde’s description and who was wanted for a parole violation. Jerde provided his name, but said that he did not have any identification. Kness testified that almost immediately thereafter Jerde volunteered that he was carrying a marijuana pipe. After Jerde produced the pipe, Kness decidеd to perform a pat down search of Jerde’s person for safety purposes. Upon being told to place his hands on a nearby vehicle, Jerde stated that he was carrying marijuana and removed it from his pocket. Kness testified that Jerde then admitted that he was carrying a gun. At this point, Kness placed Jerde in handcuffs.
Jerde was charged with possession оf a firearm by a user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). He filed a motion to suppress evidence, alleging that Kness had no reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and that the seizure thus violated Jerde’s Fourth Amendment rights. After the district court denied the motion, Jerde entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the *3 right to appеal the order. He now appeals, arguing that no specific and articulable facts supported a finding of reаsonable suspicion.
We review the district court’s legal conclusions
de novo
and its factual findings
for clear error, giving “due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident
judges аnd local law enforcement officers.” United States v. Horton,
Jerde argues that a description of height, weight, and race is not sufficient to
support reasonable suspicion and that his aсtions after Kness spotted him were not
tantamount to suspicious behavior. “Under Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)],
‘police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer
has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may
be afoot, even if the officer lacks probable cause.’” United States v. Blackmon, 662
F.3d 981, 985 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7
(1989)). “An officer’s suspicion is reasonable if he knows particularized, objective
facts that lead to a rational inference that a crime is being or has been committed.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Gannon,
Kness believed that Jerde and the woman he was walking with matched the description of the fugitive аnd the photo of the fugitive’s female companion. Kness [2] was told the fugitive was thought to be with a woman in the neighborhood Kness was patrolling. Kness combined this information with the apprehensive look on Jerde’s face and the couple’s decision to take the first available turn off the street Kness’s patrol car was traveling and begin walking on opposite sidеs of the street to conclude that “they were trying to avoid me.” Hr’g Tr. 18. Jerde’s facial expression and the couple’s decision to part ways may individually be innocuous, but when considered together in light of Kness’s belief that the couple matched the descriptions of the individuals he was seeking, Kness had reasonable suspicion to conduct a limited investigatory stop to determine Jerde’s identity. See United States v. Stewart, 631F.3d 453, 457 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[F]actors that individually may be consistent with innocent behavior, when takеn together, can give rise to reasonable suspicion, even though some persons exhibiting those factors will be innocent.”). After Jerde [3] voluntarily produced the marijuana pipe, Kness had probable cause to arrest him and conduсt a search incident to arrest. Thus, Jerde’s rights were not violated by the stop and subsequent search.
The order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed.
______________________________
Notes
[1] The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
[2] Although Kness was mistaken about Jerde’s identity as the fugitive, the
mistakе was objectively reasonable. See United States v. Phillips,
[3] Because we conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to support an
investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio,