Page 26 - TPA Journal September October 2024

The district court sentenced him to time One exception permits officers to conduct brief
served. Alvarez timely appealed. investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion
that the person is engaged in criminal activity or
In reviewing the denial of a motion to sup- wanted in connection with a completed felony.
press, we review factual findings for clear error Reasonable suspicion therefore “must exist before
and legal conclusions de novo. Whether officers the initiation of an investigatory detention.”
had reasonable suspicion to support an investiga-
tive stop is a question of law. Reasonable suspicion “is a low threshold, requir-
ing” only a “minimal level of objective justifica-
We view the evidence in the light most tion.” But it “must be founded on specific and
favorable to the prevailing party—here, the gov- articulable facts rather than on a mere suspicion or
ernment. We will uphold the district court’s ruling ‘hunch.’” Reasonable suspicion “takes into
“if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to account the totality of the circumstances— the
support it.” whole picture.”

“Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to
Alvarez challenges only whether the officers had stop is answered from the facts known to the offi-
reasonable suspicion for the stop; he does not cer at the time.” Relevant facts and considerations
challenge the frisk. He argues the description of may include a description of a suspect, a suspect’s
the wanted gang member was too general and the location and proximity to known or reported crim-
detail about past flight from police on the bicycle inal activity, the timeliness of information or the
was too “sparse” and potentially “stale.” The gov- stop, a suspect’s behavior, and the officer’s expe-
ernment relies on the description of the subject rience. Facts that appear innocent when viewed in
and the bicycle, the location, and the officers’ isolation can constitute reasonable suspicion when
knowledge of gang activity in the area. viewed collectively.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure A physical description of a suspect known to offi-
in their persons, houses, papers, and cers must be sufficiently specific and particular-
effects, against unreasonable searches ized to justify an investigatory stop. “Terry does
and seizures, shall not be violated, and not authorize broad dragnets . . . . Without more, a
no Warrants shall issue, but upon description that applies to large numbers of people
probable cause, supported by Oath or will not justify the seizure of a particular individ-
affirmation, and particularly describ- ual.”
ing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized. A general, imprecise physical description of a sus-
pect, standing alone, is insufficient to support rea-
The exclusionary rule, a judicially created deter- sonable suspicion. For example, in United States
rence measure, provides that evidence obtained by v. Jones, 619 F.2d 494, 496, 498 (5th Cir. 1980),
an unreasonable search or seizure generally may an officer stopped a man matching “the general
not be used as evidence of guilt at trial. description that he had heard over the police radio
Warrantless searches and seizures are per se the day before” of “a black male, 5 feet 6 inches to
unreasonable subject to certain narrow exceptions. 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing between 150 and
180 pounds, with a medium afro hair style, who
The government bears the burden of showing an was wearing jeans and a long denim jacket.” (The
exception applies. information reported by the police radio was in
fact five weeks old. See id. at 496.) We found no

22 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal