Judge Michael McC _ nick - Voice For The Defense Online

Police officers stopped the defendantbased on a "wanted flyer" issued byanother policedepartment showing that thedefendant was wanted for investigation ofan aggravated robbery. The Court held astopmay bejustifiedif the flyerorbulletinwas issued on the basis of a reasonablesuspicion that the wanted person has committedan offense. Evidence discoveredpursuant to that stop is admissible if the~olice who issued the flver had awere discovered in the back of the truck.Peters v. New York, 392 US. 40, 88S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968)(decided with Sibron v. New York): h officerwasinhis home whenheheatdanoiseat his door. His attempt to investigate wasinterrupted by a phone call, bubwhen hereturned to thedoorandlcoked through thepeephole, he saw two men tiptoeing out ofthealcovetowardtbestainvay.Theofficerbelieved that he had hannened uDon an at-ieasonable suspicion justifying the stop tempted b~glary. He opened hiidoor andand the police who stop the defendant do slammed it loudly behind him. The twonot act beyond the scope that would be al- men then fled down the stairs and werelowed the issuing police.stopped shortly thereafter. The facts wereFlorida v. Rodriguez, 469 US. 1, 105 sufficient to support a reasonableS.Ct. 308, 83 L.Fd.2d 165 (1984): The suspicion.defendant and his cohorts acted in an un- The following are federal cases whereusual manner while leaving an airplane the facts were found insutficient to justifyticket counter in the Miami Airport. One a Terry stop.person had spoken furtively to the other, Reid v. Georgia, 448 US. 438, 100and one was twice overheard by police ur- S.0. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980): Theging the others to "get out of here." One defendant arrived at the Atlanta Airport onpersonmade Strange movements, "his legs a commercial flight from Ft. Landerdale,were pumping up and down very fast and Florida. A DEA agent saw the defendantnot covering muchground, ... as if the per- occasionally look backward in the direcsonwere rnnning in place," in an attempt tion of a second man, who carried ato evade the officers. Also, when stopped, shoulder bag similar to the one carried bythe suspects gave contradictory statements the defendant. The defendant reached theconcerning their identities. The stopping main lobby of the terminal, and the secondofficerbad specialtraininginnarcotics sur- man caught up with and spoke briefly toveillance and apprehension, and the defen- him. The facts supported at most a hunch,dantand theothers werestoppedinamajor and wereinsufficient to justify the stop.international airport where reasonable ex- Sibron v. New York, 392 US. 40, 88pectations of privacy were "of significant- SCt. 1889,20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968): Sibronly lesser magnitude. .."was seen conversing with other personsFlorida v. Royer, 460 US. 491, 103 known to be narcotics addicts. The subjectS.0. 1319, 75 L.Fd.2d 229 (1983): The of the conversations was not known. Theredefendant was stopped after officers con- were insufficient facts to support the stop.cluded that his appearance, mannerisms, Special note should be taken regardingluggage, and actions fit the "drug-courier the "drug-courier profde" situation vis-aprofile."Hehad purchased a one-way tick- vis Terly stops. The Supreme Court haset to New York from Miami under a dif- granted a writ of certiorari in United Statesferent name. This case was reversed, v. Sokolow, No 87- 1295,43 Cr.L.R. 4061,however, because the detention after the June 8, 1988. The federal decision belowstop exceeded Terry limits.was reported at 831 F.2d 1413. The Ninth~nited Sturcs v..co).~~z, 440 US. 41 1, Circuii Court ot'Appeills prkwntcd 3 good101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 0221 (19x1): disvussi~~n~~t'thcflc.xibility notedin"dmg-Policebad investigatedtransportationofillegalaliens near the border in an areaheaviiy trafficked by aliens entering fromMexico. Footprints with a distinctive patternled to a highway, where the alienswere picked up in a vehicle. The officersset up surveillance and saw the defendantdrive a truck to the suspected pick-up site.Apassengerwas found wearing shoes withthedistinctiveshoeprint, andillegalalienscourier profile" cases, and held that areasonable suspicion must be founded onevidenceof on-goingcriminalactivity, andmay not merely be based on evidence correspondingto the "drug-courier profile."Under the facts of the case, there were insufficientfacts to support a suspicion ofon-going criminal activity even though thedefendant exhibited "drug- courier profile"characteristics.The question presented for review beforethe Supreme Court is whether a reasonablesuspicion that a person is engagedin narcotics trafficking may be based on acommon sense analysis of all of the informationin the officers' possession, or mayit be based on at least one factor that constitutesdirect evidence of an ongoingcrime plus circumstantial evidence thatmay be considered only if its significanceis verified by empirical or statistical data.Thus, the law may be modified by actionon this case by the Supreme Court.The following are Texas cases wherethe facts were sufficient to justify a Terrystop.Hoag v. State, 728 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987): Officers suspected that thedefendant was involved in a burglary committedtwo days before his arrest. Whileunder surveillance, the defendant determinedthat no one was at home at the twohouses. He went into the backyard of onehouse and tried to open the garage door ofthe other house After returning to his car,the defendant drove to an apartment complex,pulled into the parking lot, and wentin. Thhty minutes later, he came out canyinga newspaper and a canned drink. Afterhe drove away, police went into the complexand looked, without success, for aburglarized apartment. The defendant waspulled over by a patrol car shortly afterward.The facts were sufficient to justify abriefdetention, but did not support thesubsequentwarrantless arrest.Marsh v. State, 684 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984): A Texas Ranger was fishingon a ranch in Fort Bend County, andnoticed activity on the ranch's grass landingstrip shortly before midnight. He thensaw activity consistent with unloadingcargo in the dark by several persons, andsaw flares and flashlights. The officerknew that clandestine rendezvous withaircraft in remote locations in the dead ofnight were standard practices in the drugimportation trade. The defendant wasstopped shortly thereafter when the rangermet with another officer. There were sufficientfacts to justify the stop.Meeks v. State, 653 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983): Two officers were on routinepatrol in a high crime area of Houston,and saw the defendant walking toward aparked car and away from a vacant lotwhere a semi-tractodrailer and a stakebedtruck wereparked. One officer noticed20 VOICEfor the Defense I January 1989