Page 30 - Jan Feb TPA Journal

commit, a crime.” It cannot be unparticularized or develop after the suspect has been detained.
founded on a mere hunch. Instead, “a minimal level To determine whether reasonable suspicion
of objective justification” is required. Observations existed at the initiation o the investigatory detention,
capable of innocent explanation when considered we evaluate each fact identified by the district
alone might rise to the level of reasonable suspicion court as supporting a reasonable suspicion to initiate
in the aggregate. Likewise, an officer can have a the investigatory detention. Our conclusion, though,
reasonable suspicion without ruling out every depends on the combination of facts.
innocent explanation. We account for the totality of The district court found that the officers were
the circumstances in determining whether there was a “aware of recent gang violence” in the area, i.e., the
“‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting drive-by shootings at the nearby gas station.
legal wrongdoing.” The officers, according to the court, were “closely
When reviewing the denial of a motion to patrolling” this area in response to the shootings. On
suppress, we review questions of law de novo and appeal, McKinney argues his presence in a
findings of fact for clear error. For factual findings, high-crime area is not evidence to support reasonable
we give the district court heightened deference when suspicion.
the judge had the “opportunity to judge the credibility Certainly, “the fact that the stop occurred in a
of those witnesses,” a benefit that appellate courts do ‘high crime area’ [is] among the relevant contextual
not have. There was no evidentiary hearing in this considerations in a Terry analysis.” Still, a person’s
case, though, so there is no heightened deference to “presence in an area of expected criminal activity,
the district court’s findings of fact. standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable,
Demonstrating reasonable suspicion is the particularized suspicion that the person is committing
Government’s burden. On this issue, we view the a crime.” The officers were patrolling the area in
evidence in the light most favorable to the party that response to recent shootings, but those shootings do
prevailed in district court. Here, that is the not justify stopping anyone absent an articulable
Government. We will uphold the district court’s suspicion about a connection between the person and
decision if there is any reasonable view of those crimes. In one case, we held that an officer
the evidence to support doing so. lacked reasonable suspicion to stop a red vehicle just
The parties do not appear to dispute when fifteen minutes after receiving a dispatch that a red
McKinney and the others were seized. “It must be vehicle was involved in gun fire in the same area. In
recognized that whenever a police officer accosts another, we held that reasonable suspicion did exist
an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, when officers heard gunshots “around the corner,”
he has ‘seized’ that person.” When Officer Holland and within one minute pulled over a vehicle being
jumped out of the police SUV and approached the driven “relatively fast” from the direction of the
group, he shined his flashlight on the woman shooting.
who appeared to be walking away and ordered that From the evidence introduced by the
she return. No reasonable person would have felt free Government, this was a mixed residential and
to walk away. As a result, each person in the commercial area, containing a few stores and
group was seized at that moment. restaurants to which the local residents could walk. A
Because the initial detention must be justified at small group being on a sidewalk was not itself
its inception, the issue in this case is whether the evidence of anything suspicious. Later, officers
officers had reasonable suspicion based on their learned that none of those in the group lived in the
observations at the time they ordered the woman to immediate area, but there was no evidence
stop. If reasonable suspicion is lacking at this point, officers knew that when the stop was made. Nothing
there is no need to analyze whether the subsequent observed by the officers connected McKinney or
pat-down was supported by a reasonable suspicion anyone else standing on the sidewalk to the recent
that McKinney was armed and dangerous. In and nearby shootings that had been made from
contrast, if the initial detention is justified by a passing vehicles. The officers hardly even alleged a
reasonable suspicion, facts supporting a pat-down can suspicious connection. Officer Holland told the

Jan.-Feb. 2021 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 27