CA5: Stop of wrong guy was still with reasonable suspicion

Stop of the wrong guy, but objectively likely the right one, was with reasonable suspicion. The fact he was not the person named in the 911 call about a burglar in the neighborhood did not negate reasonable suspicion. The patdown was reasonable in scope. United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2008):

In sum, reasonable suspicion existed to believe that Vickers was engaged in a recently completed burglary, which gave the officers the right to stop him. Furthermore, the officers did not exceed the permissible scope of the stop when the officers sought to pat down Vickers. True, the police were incorrect in their initial suspicion that Vickers was involved in the burglary that prompted the police response. That hindsight does not change the Fourth Amendment analysis of whether the stop and frisk of Vickers was reasonable. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Vickers’s motion to suppress.

Comment: The police are entitled to make reasonable mistakes in enforcing the law, and, the way the court sets out these facts, every thing the officer who encountered the defendant did was clearly reasonable under the circumstances. They stopped him really close to the scene of the burglary, the report was detailed from the victim to 911, the defendant easily matched the description of the burglar, etc. We can’t tell, but it would seem that the entire investigation keyed on the wrong guy quickly, so the real burglar likely escaped and was never caught.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.