SD: Frisk of an accurately described panhandler didn’t allege a crime and was invalid

A call about a panhandler did not justify his frisk. While the call accurately described him, there was not crime at all. An accurate description alone isn’t corroboration of anything. The frisk was invalid. State v. Walter, 2015 SD 37, 2015 S.D. LEXIS 70 (May 27, 2015):

… While the parties also stipulated that the call included a detailed description of Walter, the report did not include any information regarding the manner in which the alleged panhandling was conducted. Furthermore, the State has not asserted that Officer Ackland personally witnessed Walter exhibit any suspicious behavior. Officer Ackland testified that Walter was standing alone, on a sidewalk, not near any entrance to a public building. In essence, the State asks us to uphold the seizure and search of an individual based only on an accurate description of the “suspect’s” appearance and the statement that he is engaged in activity that might be criminal under certain conditions, but without any claim that those conditions are actually present or any other statement of alleged fact enabling the detaining officer to infer that those conditions might be present.

This entry was posted in Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.