Defendant\u2019s evasive movements near and shortly after a shooting call that at least partially matched him was reasonable suspicion. \u201cThe sum of the information available to the officers when they decided to stop Porter gave them reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. Some twelve minutes after the first 911 call, and relatively near to where the shooting occurred, Det. Smith observed Porter behaving in a manner that he properly judged to be suspicious in light of his experience. Even if there had been no report of a shooting or flashing blue lights just down the street, such furtive behavior (hiding in the shadows, not crossing the street until the coast was clear, and avoiding main streets in favor of alleys) would naturally draw the interest of a police officer on patrol in such a high-crime area. Once the witness confirmed that the jacket Porter was wearing matched clothing worn by the shooter, the totality of the circumstances gave the officers reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop him for questioning.\u201d United States v. Porter, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183776 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s evasive movements near and shortly after a shooting call that at least partially matched him was reasonable suspicion. \u201cThe sum of the information available to the officers when they decided to stop Porter gave them reasonable suspicion that he … Continue reading