Motion to suppress; Fourth Amendment; Investigatory stop; Reasonable suspicion; Flight risk; Handcuffing during stop; United States v Jacob; Search incident to arrest; Vehicle search; Arizona v Gant; Reasonable belief evidence of crime of arrest will be found; Stalking; 18 USC § 2261A; Possession of unregistered firearm silencer; 26 USC §§ 5861(d) & 5871; 18 USC § 921(a)(3)(C); Forfeiture; Magistrate judge’s report & recommendation

The court held that officers did not unlawfully arrest defendant by handcuffing him during an investigatory stop and that the vehicle search was justified as a search incident to arrest. He was charged with possession of an unregistered firearm silencer and stalking after officers stopped him in a Kroger parking lot near the workplace of his estranged wife, saw binoculars and a gun magazine in his vehicle, and then found firearms, including one with a silencer. The district court denied his motion to suppress, and he pled guilty to the silencer count. On appeal, the court first held that the initial handcuffing did not convert the stop into an arrest. It reasoned the officer had reasonable suspicion because he knew of a “possible domestic situation” and “possibly a factor of stalking,” and he reasonably believed defendant was a flight risk because call notes stated he would flee, his vehicle briefly backed up, and he did not immediately comply with commands. Thus, the handcuffing was “a reasonable use of force.” The court next held that the vehicle search was valid because, after defendant was arrested for stalking, it was reasonable to believe the vehicle contained evidence of stalking. It concluded the binoculars alone were enough, explaining the issue was “not a close call” because they were on the center console, were discovered shortly after defendant had driven near the victim’s workplace, and were unlikely to have an innocent use in a Kroger parking lot. The court rejected his challenge to the district court’s interpretation of testimony about binoculars because the issue was forfeited and, in any event, the relevant question was whether the binoculars provided a “reasonable basis to believe” the vehicle contained other evidence of stalking. Affirmed.