UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANUEL CHAVEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 19-2123
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
January 20, 2021
PUBLISH. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00461-JAP-1). FILED January 20, 2021. Christopher M. Wolpert, Clerk of Court.
William D. Lunn of William D. Lunn Attorney at Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma (Shammara H. Henderson of Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant.
Dustin C. Segovia, Assistant United States Attorney (John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Las Cruces, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
We must decide whether a deputy sheriff’s warrantless seizure of a firearm from a car was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Before the seizure, the driver, Manuel Chavez, had driven the car at least a couple hundred feet up a private, dirt roadway and parked it outside his isolated trailer home. In a thorough order, the district court approved just one of the government’s asserted justifications for the seizure of the firearm (a .38 special caliber Amadeo Rossi S.A.). It ruled that the deputy’s seizure of the firearm was reasonable as part of an inventory of the car’s contents in preparation for impounding it. But during the inventory, a woman emerged from the trailer and satisfied the deputy that she owned the car. So the deputy left the car with her where it was parked, mere feet from her and the defendant’s trailer, but the deputy kept the firearm.
In denying an ensuing motion to suppress, the district court held that the deputy could lawfully seize and keep the firearm, even without admissible evidence that anyone had illegally possessed or used it. The court did not evaluate whether it mattered that the deputy never in fact impounded the car. We reject the district court’s denying the motion to suppress on inventory-impoundment grounds. Further,
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
On January 8, 2018, soon after midnight, Deputy Sheriff Eric Castañeda saw a car run a stop sign in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After catching up to the car, Deputy Castañeda activated his patrol lights as a signal for the car to pull over. With the deputy behind him, the driver slowly made his way to a nearby gas station. The driver parked near a gas pump, and the deputy parked behind him. As the deputy approached on foot, he noticed that the driver—later identified as Manuel Chavez1—was a Hispanic male wearing a camouflage jacket, a red-and-white beanie, jewelry around his neck, and an earring in his left ear. The deputy also noticed a small brown-and-white dog moving around inside the car.
The deputy further noticed that Mr. Chavez was steadily gazing at him in the car’s mirrors, and he saw Mr. Chavez roll his shoulder forward as if reaching for something under his car seat. Concerned for his safety, the deputy proceeded slowly, pausing momentarily after reaching the car and touching its trunk. Taking his hand off the trunk, he unfastened his holster and placed his hand on his gun, preparing to draw it if necessary. After the deputy took another step or two, Mr. Chavez sped away.
During the ensuing pursuit, Mr. Chavez ran another red light, exceeded the speed limit, and risked colliding with an ambulance by swerving lanes. The deputy again activated his patrol lights. Though the deputy temporarily lost sight of the car, he soon saw dust hovering above an intersecting dirt road and turned down it.
The dirt road ran about 200 or 300 feet. At its end, the deputy saw, through more raised dust, a trailer, an RV, and the same car with its headlights and taillights shining in the darkness. The car was sitting a few feet from the trailer. The area around the dirt road and the trailer was open property, full of tumbleweeds and tall, dried brush. The deputy saw “a lot of opportunity for someone to hide around those places.” R. vol. 1 at 146. The dirt roadway had no streetlights.
The deputy exited his patrol car with his gun drawn, and after letting the dust settle some, approached the car. Using his gun light, he saw that the driver was gone but that the dog remained inside the car. The deputy then called for backup assistance. Within three minutes, other deputies and officers arrived and began setting up a perimeter.
One responding officer, Deputy Leroy Chavez, noticed that the car’s “engine was still running” and that its RPMs were “fluctuating.” Id. at 235, 242. He also saw that the car was in the drive gear and that it had a “slight rock to it” from idling. Id. at 245, 248. As he approached, he confirmed that the car had no occupants except for the dog. With officers standing in front of the car, and the unrestrained dog inside, Deputy Chavez worried that the car might move forward. For safety’s sake, he opened the unlocked driver’s side door, balanced himself on the steering wheel with his left hand, put his right foot on the brake, and shifted the vehicle into park with his right hand. As he pushed back out of the car, he saw on the driver-side floorboard a “rubber grip which appeared to be
Meanwhile, a man emerged from the RV and asked what was going on. Deputy Castañeda told him why the officers were there. The man gave helpful information. He told the deputy that the car belonged to the man and woman who lived in the trailer but that he did not know their names. He also recognized the dog inside the car as one “usually here in the yard.” Manuel Chavez Belt-Tape Recording Part 1 Ex. 2, at 1:49–1:55.
After this encounter, Deputy Castañeda heard another deputy yell several commands from a corner of the property. That deputy had found a man lying face down in a large pit. Deputy Castañeda soon identified the man as the driver of the car. About this time, Deputy Chavez sidled up to Deputy Castañeda and told him about the firearm he had seen inside the car by the “driver’s seat.” Id. at 8:34–40. Without giving Mr. Chavez a Miranda warning, Deputy Castañeda asked him, “Are you a felon?” Id. at 8:40–8:41. Mr. Chavez responded, “Yes, sir.” Id. at 8:41–8:42.
After arresting Mr. Chavez, Deputy Castañeda began walking him to the patrol car. On the way, the two men approached the car that Mr. Chavez had driven. As they were alongside it, Deputy Castañeda peered through the driver’s side window and saw the firearm “kind of tucked in . . . underneath the seat and outside on the floorboard.” R. vol. 1 at 159. Back in his patrol car, Deputy Castañeda ran Mr. Chavez’s licensing information through a law-enforcement database. This revealed that Mr. Chavez had been arrested several times and was driving with a suspended driver’s license. So Deputy Castañeda decided to inventory the car and have it towed and impounded.
A Deputy Heredia began inventorying and photographing the car’s contents. After she photographed the firearm, Deputy Castañeda took it and secured it in his patrol car. When the officers were “pretty much already done with the inventory prior to tow,” a female (“C.B.“) appeared from the trailer and claimed to own the car. Id. at 161. After verifying her ownership, Deputy Castañeda released the car to her. The deputy learned from C.B. that she and Mr. Chavez were in a relationship and that he sometimes used her car. When asked about the firearm inside her car, C.B. denied knowing about it or owning it. Deputy Castañeda kept the firearm and it was tagged into evidence. He testified that he “wasn’t just going to hand the gun out to someone, and the gun couldn’t stay in the car if it was going to get released to her.”2 Id. at 163.
Soon after this, Deputy Castañeda took Mr. Chavez to the South Valley Command Center, where he accessed the National Crime Information Center database. From that, he confirmed Mr. Chavez’s felon status and that no one had reported the firearm as stolen.
B. Procedural History
A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Chavez on a single count: felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
After a two-day hearing, the district court denied Mr. Chavez’s motion to suppress.3 In doing so, the district court made three core rulings. First, the court ruled that Mr. Chavez had standing4 to assert his Fourth Amendment claim. In this regard, the court rejected the government’s argument that Mr. Chavez had abandoned the car by fleeing from it, with the engine running, keys in the ignition, and headlights and taillights on. In concluding that Mr. Chavez had standing, the district court relied on Mr. Chavez’s having permission to drive the car and his having left it outside his residence.
Second, the court credited both deputies’ accounts of seeing the firearm in plain view on the floorboard. But the district court concluded that seeing the firearm in plain view did not authorize a warrantless seizure of the firearm, because Mr. Chavez’s possession of the firearm gave no probable cause of a crime. For instance, rejecting one of the government’s arguments to the contrary, the court ruled that Mr. Chavez’s furtive movements at the service station had not established probable cause of a crime involving the firearm.
Third, the court ruled that the inventory search complied with the Fourth Amendment. According to the district court, the deputies followed “written standardized procedures, and there [was] no evidence that they acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation.” R. vol. 1 at 394 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Though the deputies did not ultimately impound the car after verifying C.B.’s ownership, the court upheld the inventory search on grounds that the deputy had reasonably believed the car would be impounded. And from that, the district court concluded, without analysis, that the continued seizure of the handgun was also reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. On this basis, the court denied Mr. Chavez’s motion to suppress.
II. DISCUSSION
In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, accept the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and review de novo the ultimate question of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. McNeal, 862 F.3d 1057, 1061 (10th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
A. Fourth Amendment Standard
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Though “the defendant bears the burden of proving whether and when the Fourth Amendment was implicated, [t]he government then bears the burden of proving that its warrantless actions were justified [by an exception].” United States v. Neugin, 958 F.3d 924, 930 (10th Cir. 2020) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.2(b) (6th ed., Sept. 2020 update) (“[I]f the search or seizure was pursuant to a warrant, the defendant has the burden of proof; but if the police acted without a warrant the burden of proof is on the prosecution.” (footnote omitted)). “[W]ithout such a rule there would be little reason for law enforcement agencies to bother with the formality of a warrant.” LaFave, supra, § 11.2(b) (footnote omitted). Here, we conclude that the government’s asserted bases for a warrantless seizure all fail.
B. Mr. Chavez Has Standing to Assert a Fourth Amendment Violation
To bring a challenge under the Fourth Amendment, a person must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d 1189, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986)). “[A] warrantless search and seizure of abandoned property is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” because “[w]hen individuals voluntarily abandon property, they forfeit any expectation of privacy in it that they might have had.” United States v. Austin, 66 F.3d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1995) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted); United States v. Garzon, 119 F.3d 1446, 1449 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[A] defendant lacks standing to complain of an illegal search or seizure of property which has been abandoned.” (citation omitted)).
The abandonment test considers (1) whether the individual had a subjective expectation of privacy in the thing or place searched, and (2) whether the person had an objective expectation of privacy, one that society will recognize as reasonable. See Garzon, 119 F.3d at 1449–50. Subjective expectation is a finding of fact, which we review for clear error; objective expectation is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. at 1449.
The government challenges the objective prong only, arguing that Mr. Chavez had no objective expectation of privacy “in the vehicle at the time he fled from it.” Appellee’s Answer Br. at 27. The district court concluded that Mr. Chavez maintained an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy when he “drove the vehicle
For instance, the government relies on United States v. Quintana-Grijalva, 332 F. App’x 487, 489–90 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished), in which we concluded that a driver had abandoned his car for Fourth Amendment purposes after driving it off a highway and through a barbed-wire fence and then running from the car, leaving the doors open. Mr. Chavez’s situation differs—he left the car at the end of a long private, dirt road, just outside his trailer, with doors shut and his dog still inside. The government cites no case in which our circuit has held that a defendant abandons a car in analogous circumstances.
The authority we have located relies on the car’s being abandoned in a public place, not on private property outside the defendant’s residence. See, e.g., United States v. Falsey, 566 F. App’x 864, 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (concluding that an unlocked car parked in a business parking lot with the keys inside was abandoned); United States v. Smith, 648 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a driver abandoned a car when he “left the car open, with the keys in the ignition, [and] the motor running, in a public area“); United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d 749, 751 (5th Cir. 1971) (“Defendant’s right to Fourth Amendment protection came to an end when he abandoned his car to the police, on a public highway, with engine running, keys in the ignition, lights on, and fled on foot.“). As such, we determine that Mr. Chavez had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car and that he may thus assert a Fourth Amendment claim.
C. The Deputies Saw the Firearm in Plain View, Before Searching the Car
At the trial court, Mr. Chavez contended that the “gun was not in plain view of anyone outside the vehicle,” and that the deputies asserting otherwise were “not credible” and had an “implausible” interpretation of the facts. R. vol. 1 at 23. Despite this argument, the district court found that both deputies had seen the firearm in plain view on the driver-side floorboard. The district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the government need not rely on any Fourth Amendment warrant exception for locating the handgun. Instead, this case turns on whether the government has shown that the deputy’s seizure, and continued seizure, of the firearm was reasonable, even though he released the car to C.B. and did not impound it. We now review and reject each of the government’s asserted bases in support of its argument that the continued seizure was reasonable.
D. The Government’s Theories for Affirmance Under Which It Need Not Show Probable Cause of a Crime Involving the Firearm
1. The Inventory Search
As mentioned, the district court denied Mr. Chavez’s motion to suppress after concluding that the inventory search was lawful. But the district court’s decision relies on two mistaken bases: (1) that the deputies conducted a lawful inventory search of the car; and (2) that even absent impounding the car, the lawful inventory search entitled the deputy to continue to seize noncontraband items taken during the inventory. Because the deputies saw the firearm in plain view before even inventorying the car’s contents, the first point is less important than it would be otherwise. But we reject the district court’s conclusion on both points.
The district court did not reference the private-property exclusion. Instead, the district court relied on a different portion of the Bernalillo policy, one authorizing towing when a driver is “incapacitated, hospitalized, arrested, and/or when the vehicle cannot be released to a registered owner.” Id. at 63. The district court found that the Bernalillo policy permitted the officers to inventory and impound the car after arresting Mr. Chavez. But because the car was on the owner’s private property, the policy barred the deputy from impounding it. See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372 (recognizing that “inventories pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable“). And without a permissible reason for impounding a car, nothing justified the deputies’ decision to inventory the car’s contents. Lugo, 978 F.2d at 636 n.3 (noting that a lawful impoundment is a “prerequisite to a valid inventory search“).
Addressing the second point, we note that the district court impliedly ruled that collecting the car’s contents under a valid inventory search would enable the deputy to continue to seize the firearm, even after its owner claimed the car and the deputy gave up on impounding the car. The government cites no authority justifying the continued seizure of noncontraband property removed during an invalid inventory search, or even a valid one, after the deputy called off any impoundment.6
2. The Community-Caretaking Exception
As another basis for justifying its warrantless seizure of the firearm, the government
The community-caretaker exception, though not to be used as an investigatory tool, can justify seizing personal property—including automobiles. See Neugin, 958 F.3d at 931. The Supreme Court has noted that “[i]n the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called ‘community caretaking functions,’ automobiles are frequently taken into police custody.” Opperman, 428 U.S. at 368 (internal citation omitted). Along this line, the Court has recognized that “[t]he authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.” Id. at 369.
The Supreme Court originally applied the community-caretaking doctrine in Cady v. Dombrowski, when it upheld a warrantless search and seizure of a car after officers responded to a highway crash involving an intoxicated driver. 413 U.S. at 436, 448. The driver identified himself as a Chicago police officer, causing the responding officers to reasonably believe that he would have a service revolver in his possession. Id. at 436. After determining the car posed a “nuisance along the highway,” the responding officers had the car towed to a private garage lot seven miles from the police station. Id. at 443. The garage lot had no security guard. Id. Because the investigating officers had found no service revolver on the driver’s person, an officer later looked in the car’s trunk for one. Id. at 437. Rather than finding a revolver, the officer found evidence linking the driver to a murder. Id. The Court upheld the warrantless search, concluding that just because “the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by ‘less intrusive’ means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable.” Id. at 447–48 (citation omitted). Because the officers believed that the car contained a firearm, the Cady Court justified the officers’ search based on a “concern for the safety of the general public who might be endangered if an intruder removed a revolver from the trunk of the vehicle.” Id. at 447.
After Cady, courts have justified the seizure of items from inside a car under the community-caretaking doctrine. See, e.g., Lugo, 978 F.2d at 636 (concluding that “removal of the gun” was a “community caretaking task” (citing Cady, 413 U.S. at 443)). But because public safety lies at the heart of the doctrine, our court has relied on Cady to support a warrantless seizure of a firearm and ammunition only when there were concerns about protecting the public. Id. In Lugo, we upheld a police officer’s warrantless removal of those items from a car parked at a service station, concluding that the retrieval of the firearm was a “community caretaking task” necessary “to protect the public from the possibility that a revolver would fall into untrained or perhaps malicious hands.” Id. at 633, 636 (quoting Cady, 413 U.S. at 443). Similarly, we have concluded that Cady justified a warrantless seizure of a weapon from within a car parked at a public lounge after officers arrested a driver and saw a revolver in plain view on the seat and nonmatching ammunition in the passenger compartment. United States v. Johnson, 734 F.2d 503, 504–05 (10th Cir. 1984).
Though officers have “some latitude in undertaking their community caretaking role, their actions must be reasonably related in scope to the underlying justification.” Neugin, 958 F.3d at 931 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The government must show that its interest “outweigh[s] the individual’s interest in being free from arbitrary governmental interference.” Id. (alteration in original) (citing United States v. Garner, 416 F.3d 1208, 1213 (10th Cir. 2005)). This is because “a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not eviscerated simply because a police officer may be acting in a noninvestigatory capacity for ‘[i]t is surely anomalous to say that the individual . . . [is] fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.’” King, 990 F.2d at 1560 (alterations and ellipsis in original) (citation omitted).
We have declined to apply the community-caretaker doctrine absent “specific and articulable facts” concerning a public-safety need. Neugin, 958 F.3d at 931 (quoting Garner, 416 F.3d at 1213); see also id. (concluding that the exception did not apply when an officer opened a car’s interior door panel during an inventory search because “the officer testified to no public danger justifying his removal of the panel” (citing Lugo, 978 F.2d at 636)).
On appeal, the government seeks to justify the seizure of the firearm under the community-caretaking exception.7 The government contends that after C.B. denied knowing about or owning the firearm, the deputies could not safely leave the firearm unattended in the car. According to the government, the deputy reasonably retrieved the firearm to protect the public from the firearm’s “fall[ing] into untrained or perhaps malicious hands.” Appellee’s Answer Br. at 34 (quoting Lugo, 978 F.2d at 636).
But this broad proposition ignores the narrow circumstances of this case. In our view, the government’s approach would extend the community-caretaking doctrine well beyond its present bounds.8 C.B.’s car was not parked in a public spot readily accessible to children, vandals, or thieves. This matters. See Cady, 413 U.S. at 446–47 (noting as important that the car “was not parked adjacent to the dwelling place of the owner” “nor simply momentarily unoccupied on a street” (citation omitted)). The Supreme Court has “consistently accorded law enforcement officials greater latitude in exercising their duties in public places,” but the same is not said for private, secluded locations. See Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565–66 (1999); see id. (“[W]e have drawn upon the established distinction between a warrantless
Here, the car was lawfully parked at the end of a long, private, dirt road outside an isolated trailer. We cannot ignore the substantial decrease in likelihood that someone would take the firearm in that circumstance as compared to a situation with a more-visible firearm from a car parked on a public street or at a commercial business. See Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 865–66 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that police’s seizure of a car from a traffic violator’s private driveway was unreasonable and outside the community-caretaking function when the location of the vehicle did not “create any need for the police to protect the vehicle or to avoid a hazard to other drivers” (citation omitted)). The government points to no “specific and articulable facts” demonstrating a legitimate concern for public safety based on the location of the car. Garner, 416 F.3d at 1213. Common sense tells us that it would take a daring child, vandal, or thief to walk out in the open that distance to a car parked just outside a home to start snooping and burgling. We have found no case applying the community-caretaking doctrine in such a circumstance.
In addition, the deputy could not assume that C.B. would have left the handgun in the car. She might well have taken the firearm into the trailer to prevent the unlikely chance it might fall into “untrained or perhaps malicious hands.” Lugo, 978 F.2d at 636 (citation omitted). Certainly, as the inhabitant of the trailer, C.B. would have wanted to avoid exposing herself to danger. Yet the deputy never asked C.B. for permission to take the firearm from her car. And though police may “have occasion to take property from a car for safekeeping,” the same “does not apply when the owner is present and fully able to take whatever steps he wishes to protect the property in his car.” 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 7.4(b) (6th ed., Sept. 2020 update). We decline to extend the community-caretaker doctrine to these facts.
E. The Government’s Theories for Affirmance Under Which It Must Show Probable Cause of a Crime Involving the Firearm
1. Reliance on Mr. Chavez’s un-Mirandized Admission of His Felon Status
The government argues that Mr. Chavez’s admission of his felon status established probable cause to seize the firearm. Appellee’s Answer Br. at 30. Though this ordinarily would be true, the deputy obtained this admission without furnishing the warning required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), so the argument misses the mark. Accordingly, the district court had earlier suppressed Mr. Chavez’s statement from use in the government’s case in chief. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985) (“[U]nwarned statements that are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment must nevertheless be excluded from evidence under Miranda.“). Later, at the suppression hearing, the district court extended its Miranda holding by prohibiting the government from using the statement to show that the deputy had probable cause of a felon-in-possession crime to justify seizing the firearm.
In doing so, the district court relied on Vogt v. City of Hays, 844 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2017). We do too. There, we considered whether the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination protection applies in “a hearing to determine probable cause.” Id. at 1241. Holding in the affirmative, we noted that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination “is more than a
2. The Automobile or Plain-View Exception or Both
Even without the un-Mirandized admission, the government contends that the deputy was justified in seizing the firearm under the automobile-exception, the plain-view doctrine, or both. But to justify seizing the firearm under either exception, the government must establish probable cause that Mr. Chavez had committed, or was committing, a crime involving the firearm. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738 (1983) (“The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Mercado, 307 F.3d 1226, 1228 (10th Cir. 2002) (“When federal officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to obtain a warrant prior to searching the car for and seizing the contraband.” (citing White, 526 U.S. at 563–64)).
Here, as the district court correctly ruled, Mr. Chavez’s “simply having a gun in a vehicle does not per se render that gun contraband.” R. vol. 1 at 386. The district court noted that New Mexico has some of our country’s least-restrictive firearm laws. The state allows for the carrying of loaded firearms—concealed or otherwise—inside an automobile.
Though we acknowledge that probable cause “is not a high bar,” Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 962 F.3d 1204, 1220 (10th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted), the government must still present sufficient evidence that “would lead a prudent person to believe there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” United States v. Sparks, 291 F.3d 683, 687 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Here, the government relies on Mr. Chavez’s pre-arrest actions.
We agree with the district court that the deputy lacked probable cause that the firearm was tied to a crime or that the firearm’s incriminating nature was “immediately apparent.” United States v. Gordon, 741 F.3d 64, 71 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). As the district court noted, “[d]efendant’s behaviors might be enough to develop reasonable suspicion for a protective pat-down in a Terry stop situation or to continue an investigative stop, but they do not cross the threshold into probable cause.” R. vol. 1 at 390 (citing Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000)); see Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 121 (finding reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but not probable cause when an individual fled from police officers in an area known for heavy drug trafficking); Terry, 392 U.S. at 22–23 (finding reasonable suspicion—but not probable cause—supporting criminal activity when two men were hovering around a street corner, pacing down the same street on the same route, pausing to stare in the window twenty-four times, and meeting with a third man at the end of the street); United States v. McHugh, 639 F.3d 1250, 1258 (10th Cir. 2011) (“It is well-settled that nervous, evasive behavior, including fleeing from law enforcement, is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion.” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. DeJear, 552 F.3d 1196, 1198, 1200–01 (10th Cir. 2009) (concluding that a man’s nervous behavior established reasonable suspicion to detain him when he kept looking at the officer, he appeared to be trying to conceal something in a car seat by stuffing his hands toward the seat, and he was stopped in a high-crime area). Mr. Chavez’s behavior did not establish probable cause connecting the firearm to a crime, nor did the nature of the firearm itself.
Thus, we reject the government’s contention that the mere sight of the firearm, combined with everything leading up to finding Mr. Chavez hiding outside his trailer, gave probable cause to seize the firearm—whether under a plain-view or an automobile-exception theory.
III. CONCLUSION
The government failed to carry its burden in demonstrating that an exception to the warrant requirement applies.10 Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and REMAND for further proceedings.