“Defendant’s identity was not relevant to reasonable suspicion that he committed an assault, since the witnesses who reported the assault did not know his identity and therefore could not report it to Captain Root. Captain Root had only a physical description of the alleged perpetrator, which Defendant matched. Officers are not required to completely confirm reasonable suspicions before they may perform an investigative stop — only to possess a suspicion that is reasonable.” There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s frisk for officer safety when defendant was encountered in the building. United States v. McDaniel, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151782 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 20, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151780 (N.D. W.Va. Nov. 2, 2016).
The court does not credit the officer’s testimony on reasonable suspicion. “Nonetheless, the Court is left with the conclusion that the Government did not prove that Franczek observed the baggy of cocaine before he opened Hayes’s car door, and thus there was no reasonable suspicion justifying Hayes’ seizure. That Hayes subsequently obstructed the officers trying to handcuff him is of no moment, because he could lawfully resist an unlawful arrest, … and the detention was not warranted because it was not supported by reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Hayes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149020 (N.D.Ga. Oct. 6, 2016).*