DC: 2 am parking lot encounter was without RS

A radio dispatch of a suspicious vehicle on an apartment complex’s lot was so broad as to be meaningless. The trial court erred in relying on it. When the officer pulled up on the car, two occupants in the back seat fled. Without more to connect the driver to them, that can’t be reasonable suspicion either. The lateness of the hour (2 am) also isn’t material. The fact the vehicle backed up in its parking space with a back door left open isn’t material either. On the totality, it doesn’t add up to reasonable suspicion. In re R.W., 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 99 (May 1, 2025). [This is close to the “divide and conquer” analysis rejected in Arvizu because the individual pieces are not actually “added up,” but discussed, rejected, and then looked at in their totality to conclude “still no reasonable suspicion.” I don’t see this one going to SCOTUS. All things considered, it’s too thin anyway.]

“When Officer Rees initially approached defendant, he testified that he was concerned for her safety, given the late hour and the fact that she was walking a bike with a suitcase, a box, and a bag. At that time, defendant had not been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Farber, supra. After speaking to defendant, however, Officer Rees noticed an unusual protrusion under her shirt. When he asked defendant what was there, she stated that it was her bra, although he observed, and the bodycam video reveals, something else. Officer Rees also testified that defendant was sweating profusely. At this point, Officer Rees had reasonable suspicion of potential criminal activity, warranting a pat-down for officer safety.” State v. Butler, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 757 (La. App. 5 Cir Apr. 29, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.