Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
Rudolph v. Commonwealth, Record No. 080794 - February 27, 2009.
Although the contraband in this case was marijuana, this legal principle also applies to weapons.
Therefore, if you OC or CC in a high-crime area at night, those facts alone do not justify a stop.
Excerpt:
Rudolph v. Commonwealth, Record No. 080794 - February 27, 2009.
Although the contraband in this case was marijuana, this legal principle also applies to weapons.
Therefore, if you OC or CC in a high-crime area at night, those facts alone do not justify a stop.
Excerpt:
In order to conduct an investigatory stop, a police officer need not have probable cause; he must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal activity. To establish reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to articulate more than an unparticularized suspicion or "hunch" that criminal activity is afoot. A court must consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a police officer had a particularized and objective suspicion that the person stopped was involved in criminal activity.
The fact that the stop occurred in a "high crime area" is a relevant factor; however, this fact is insufficient to supply a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity on the part of the particular person stopped. We hold that the circumstances and actions observed by Latchman were not enough to create a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Viewing the totality of the circumstances objectively, even though it was 8:00 p.m. and there had been robberies and burglaries in the area, the circumstances did not supply a particularized and objective basis to suspect that Rudolph’s observed behavior was a precursor to a break-in, robbery, or any other criminal activity on his part. Therefore, Latchman stopped Rudolph in violation of Rudolph’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. Because the marijuana was discovered as a result of an illegal stop, the trial court should have granted Rudolph’s motion to suppress.