Page 32 - TPA Journal January - February 2018
P. 32
suspicion on the basis of a suspects seemingly is an objective standard that disregards the actual
innocent behavior when the officer s expertise, subjective intent of the arresting officer and looks,
training, or experience makes him aware that such instead, to whether there was an objectively
behavior is likely indicative of criminal activity justifiable basis for the detention. In assessing
under the circumstances. But the court of appeals whether reasonable suspicion exists, a reviewing
reasoned that, before a court may credit an court may take into account an officer s ability to
officer s opinion on such a matter, the officer draw on [his] own experience and specialized
should be shown to have knowledge, skill, training to make inferences from and deductions
experience, training, or education about the topic about the cumulative information available to
on which [he] speak[s][.] The court of appeals [him] that might well elude an untrained
found that type of evidence lacking in the instant person. A reviewing court must give due
case with respect to Deputy Simpsons weight to factual inferences drawn by local
qualifications. It explained that the State simply judges and law enforcement officers.
proffered evidence of [the deputys] job titles and
employment categories . . . . [A]side from the When assessing the existence of reasonable
deputy simply invoking his knowledge, training, suspicion, a reviewing court must look to the
and expertise, the State did little to illustrate of totality of the circumstances to see whether the
what it consisted or how it was garnered. detaining officer had a particularized and
objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.
The court of appeals reversed the trial courts Although the individual circumstances may seem
ruling denying appellants motion to suppress. innocent enough in isolation, if they combine to
reasonably suggest the imminence of criminal
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable conduct, an investigative detention is justified.
searches and seizures by the Government, and its It is enough to satisfy the lesser standard of
protections extend to brief investigatory stops of reasonable suspicion that the information is
persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional sufficiently detailed and reliablei.e., it supports
arrest. In such cases, the Fourth Amendment is more than an inarticulate hunch or intuitionto
satisfied if the officer s action is supported by suggest that something of an apparently criminal
reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal nature is brewing. The relevant inquiry is not
activity may be afoot. A seizure justified only whether particular conduct is innocent or criminal,
by a traffic violation becomes unlawful if but the degree of suspicion that attaches to
prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to particular non-criminal acts. A determination
conduct the traffic stop. Thus, continuing a brief that reasonable suspicion exists . . . need not rule
investigatory detention beyond the time necessary out the possibility of innocent conduct.
to conduct a traffic stop requires reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity apart from the traffic We disagree with the court of appealss elevation
violation. of the standard of proof by requiring extensive
details of an officer s training and experience as a
Reasonable suspicion to detain a person exists predicate for showing that an officer is capable of
when a police officer has specific, articulable reasonably making inferences and deductions
facts that, when combined with rational inferences based on that training and experience. As long as
from those facts, would lead him to reasonably there is some evidence in the record to support the
conclude that the person detained is, has been, or trial courts implied finding that the officer was
soon will be engaged in criminal activity. This reasonably capable of making rational inferences
28 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
