Adjusting waistband in a high crime area at night not reasonable suspicion

Defendant was in a high crime area at night and adjusted his waistband in a manner the officer said looked like he was checking a gun. None of the factors cited by the police was sufficient and collectively (as Arvizu requires) sufficient. United States v. Doughty, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74248 (S.D. N.Y. September 18, 2008):

But Officer Rodriguez’s impression of how he looked adjusting his weapon, without more, is insufficient grounds to provide “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. He did not testify that he relied on his professional experience as a police officer or on any particular training in the police academy or subsequently to identify Defendant’s movement as consistent with movement of a person carrying a gun in the waistband. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273-74 (in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, Court stressed importance of allowing officers to draw upon “their own experience and specialized training”). Further, there are a myriad of innocent explanations for Defendant’s conduct. He could have been simply hitching up his pants or tucking in his shirt. And the fact that neither officer saw a bulge — a telltale sign of weapons possession — makes it less likely that his suspicion was that of an objectively reasonable police officer. Cf. United States v. Scott, 250 Fed. Appx. 534, 535 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining how a bulge or visible object underneath clothing provides reasonable suspicion); United States v. Roundtree, 596 F.2d 672, 674 (5th Cir. 1979) (reasonable suspicion established where defendant had bulge on inside of his calf which he was seen “adjusting”). Thus, this factor too would not, standing alone, sufficiently elevate a reasonable officer’s suspicions to the level where the officer is permitted to stop and detain the suspect for questioning.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.