court’s suppression ruling on any ground made manifest by the record). Hornbecker and the government agree that Rugen detained Hornbecker between 8:02 p.m. and 8:11 p.m., and that the lawfulness of the detention is appropriately analyzed under the Terry line of cases. Hornbecker and the government also concur that, because most of the period between Rugen’s request for the Volkswagen’s papers and his completion of the written warning was attributable to Horn-becker’s initial inability to locate the papers, whether Rugen lawfully detained Hornbecker during this period essentially depends on whether Rugen’s request to inspect the papers was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695-697, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Citing interests in regulating motor vehicles
holding that a defendants response to even an invalid arrest or terry stop may constitute independent grounds for arrest recognizing that the lawfulness of a detention whether a terry stop or a full custodial arrest is determined by a factspecific application of a legal standard designed to help courts assess whether the police action was objectively reasonable holding that flight from police can help establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop holding a fourth amendment terry detention is not a custodial arrest and the use of handcuffs does not automatically convert a temporary detention into a fourth amendment arrest recognizing that the inquiry into whether the facts adequately supported a terry stop is informed by the nature and quality of the intrusion