Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
State v. Anderson, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 64 (5th Cir. January 13, 2009):
State v. Anderson, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 64 (5th Cir. January 13, 2009):
In the present case, Detective Peterson, a law enforcement officer with approximately 10 years experience, observed the defendant chambering a round into a firearm while driving with no hands on the wheel. Detective Peterson testified that, although he did not witness the defendant committing a specific crime, he stopped the defendant to investigate because "[he] did not know if a crime had been committed or was about to be committed."
We cannot say that the trial court erred in finding that Detective Peterson had sufficient reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, had been committed, or was about to be committed to justify an investigatory stop.
Detective Peterson did not have to observe what he knew to be criminal behavior before investigating but rather behavior he reasonably suspected may become criminal activity.