LA: Attempted stop on a housing project parking lot was suspicionless, and defendant’s flight was not alone reasonable suspicion; OH: Yes it is

Two contrary cases on the same issue:

There was no evidence that defendant was a trespasser when he was approached by NOLA police on the parking lot of a housing project. His flight from the police was not itself reasonable suspicion because there was no justification for approaching him in the first place. No articulable reason was given for the stop and frisk. State v. James, 980 So. 2d 750 (4th Cir. 2008) released for publication May 8, 2008:

However, even if this Court were to concede the existence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as a means of supporting an investigatory stop, this without more does not give the police the right to frisk the appellant under the circumstance herein. Rather, in addition to the reasonable suspicion supporting the investigatory stop, there must be some basis for a fear of safety or a fear the suspect is armed.

Ohio’s Fourth District, however, holds just the opposite in State v. Travis, 2008 Ohio 1042, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 902 (4th Dist. March 3, 2008), finding that defendant’s quickening pace was reasonable suspicion. The officer there did not recognize the defendant as being a resident of the housing project, either.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.