marked with a bright line." United States v. Devaugh,

, 114 (D.D.C.

2019) (quoting Hall v. District of Columbia,

(D.C. Cir. 2017)). Rather,

the "scope of the intrusion permitted will vary to some extent with the particular facts and

circumstances of each case." Florida v. Royer,

(1983). Courts consider

objective and subjective factors, including "the officer's intent in stopping the citizen; the

impression conveyed to the citizen as to whether he was in custody or only briefly detained

for questioning; the length of the stop; the questions, if any, asked; and the extent of the

search, if any, made." See United States v. White,

(D.C. Cir. 1981).

The Terry stop at issue here did not become an arrest until after Officer Mekhael

found the handgun in Gatling's satchel. Fewer than five minutes elapsed between Gatling's

first interaction with Officer Mekhael and the search of the satchel. See Mekhael BWC at

09:11:40-09:16:00. Cf United States v. Hutchinson,

(D.C. Cir.

2005) (prolonging Terry stop two to five minutes to run records check did not violate

Fourth Amendment). The stop lasted this long in part because Gatling "refus[ed] to comply

with .. . the pat down" and "actively resisted handcuffs" by "twisting his body." See

Hearing Tr. at 30:5-6, 32:21-25 (Officer Mekhael: "[I]t took a minute to actually secure

him in handcuffs."). Officer Mekhael also told Gatling he was being stopped for

investigation, not that he was being arrested, and he did not ask probing questions about

Gatling's conduct. Mekhael BWC at 09:13:00-09:13:25. These facts all suggest that

during the relevant time period, the stop remained a stop. See White, 648 F .3d at 34.

Gatling maintains that by pinning him against the small fence surrounding the stoop

and using handcuffs, the officers transformed the Terry stop into an arrest. Def.'s Mot. 8