I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CT - 0 0 4 6 0 - S CT TAZ ARI US C OOPER a

/ k / a T. C.
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 17/ 2012 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M CC RA Y T RI AL CO UR T AT T OR NE YS : J OHN HE RZ OG T AKI YAH P E RK I NS MI C H A E L WI L L I A MS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : P HI L L I P BR OADHE AD OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : ELL I O TT G EO RG E FLA G G S DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: W I L L I E DE W AYNE RI CH AR DS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 28/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. B as ed on a c i t i zen’ s compl ai ntthat“young men .
. . young bl ack men .
. . ar e s t andi ng outon the s i dew al ks , c orner s , s el l i ng drugs ” atthe 500 bl ock of U ni on St r eeti n G r eenvi l l e, M i s s i s s i ppi , pol i ce pr ocee ded t o thatar ea, w her e they s pot t ed Tazar i us C ooper , a young, b lac k m a le. T h e p o lice o ffic e r tu rn e d o n h is b lu e lig h ts, e x ited h is v e h icle , an d a ttem p ted to
c o n d u c t a n in v e s tig a to ry s to p b y o rd e ri n g C o o p e rt o “ c o m e h e re a n d le t m e ta lk to y o u .”

### See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U. S. 1, 88 S. Ct .1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1969)
. 1 

### Lt. R edmo nddidno t testify at th e hearin g o n th e motio n to sup press o r at trial. 2 

### Smithwas also a member o f the S pecial O peratio ns unit. 3 

### 2 B ef or e the of

f i cer s coul d r es tr ai n hi m i n any w ay, C oo per r an. T he of f i cer s gave c has e, f ol l ow i ng C ooperi nt o a hom e, w her e C ooperabandoned a bag cont ai ni ng a bl ue s ubs t ance thatt es t ed pos i t i ve f

orthe drug know n as ecs t as y. T he tr i al courtdeni ed C ooper ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he ev i den ce, and C ooperw as convi ct ed. W e f i nd thatthe ci t i zen’ s compl ai nt
w as i ns uf

f i ci entt o es t abl i s h a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of Cooper , ort o c onducta T erry s t op. 1 B utbeca us e C ooperw as notst opped, and becaus e C ooperl acke d s t andi ng t o chal l enge the
s ear ch of a home w hi ch di d notbel ong t o hi m , w e af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. J oe E dney, an i nves t i gat or f or the Speci al O per at i ons U ni t of the G r eenvil l e P ol i ce D epart m ent , t es t i f

i ed thatLi eut enantRedm ond r ece i ved a compl ai ntf r om an anonym ous 2 cal l erthat“ young men, young bl ack m en, a r e s t andi ng outon the s i dew al ks , corner s , s el l i ng drugs ” atthe 500 bl ock of U ni on Str eeti n G r eenvi l l e, M i s s i s s i ppi
. E dney w as noti nf or m ed
o f th e a n o n y mo u s c a l l e r ’ s i d e n t i ty , me r e l y th a ti twa s a c a l l f r o m a “ c o n c e rn e d c i t i z e n . ” At R e d m o n d ’s d ire c tio n , E d n e y a n d In v e stig a to r C h a rlto n S m ith p ro c e e d e d to U n io n S tre e t in 3 the uni t ’ s unm arked, bl ack For d F- 250 truck. ¶3. U pon arr i val atU ni on St r eet , E dney an d S m i t h found tw o m en s t andi ng “i n the
s i dew al k ar ea” i n f

r ontof a hous e l ocat ed on the 500 bl ock. E dney r ecogni zed Cooperf r om pr i ornar cot i cs cal l s . T he of f i cer s act i vat ed t he t ruck’ s bl ue l i ght s and exi t ed t he vehi cl e, and E dney comm anded Coopert o “come her e and l etm e t al k t o you. ” C ooper , how ever , began

### Co op er v. Sta te , 2012- KA-00460- COA,____ So. 3d ____, 2013 WL 5614321, *4 4 

### (¶ 20) ( Mis s. Ct. App. Oc t. 15, 2013)
. 3 run n ing tow ard the h o u se, force d the d o o r o p en , a n d c o n ti n u ed insid e. E d n ey ch ase d C o o p er. T he otherm an – C ooper ’ s f r i end, D enni s W r i ght– i m m edi at el y dr opped t o hi s knees and
w as det ai ned by Sm i th. ¶4 . E dney t es t i f

i ed t hatm any o f

the s truc tur es on t hi s bl ock w er e rundow n and di l api dat ed. I n f

act , he des cr i bed thi s pa r t i cul arhous e as “ very de cr epi t , [ w i th] hol es i n t he
w a lls, h o les in th e flo o r, un liv a b le.” A s E d n e y w e n t up the sta irs to e n ter th e h o u se in p u rsu it
o f C o o p e r, h e sa w C o o p e r th ro w a p las tic b a g g ie c o n tain in g a b lu e s u b sta n c e in to a h o le in the w all insid e the h o u se. A cc o rdin g to E d n ey , “ y o u c o u ld se e into the living roo m to w h ere the dryw al l had ei therf al l en of f the w al l orthats om ebody had i nt enti onal l y t ook i tdow n, b u t a t th a t tim e I s a w h im th ro w in g s o m e th in g in th e re .” ¶5. E dney ent er ed the hous e and det ai ned C ooper . H e then r etr i eved the di s car ded bag fro m th e h o le in th e w a ll a n d d isc o v e re d th a t it co n tain e d tw e n ty -o n e b lu e p ill s w ith d o lp h in i m pr i nt s , w hi ch f

i el d- t es t ed pos i t i ve f

orecs t as y. ¶6. E dney arres t ed C oo per an d charged hi m w i th pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. B as ed upon Edney’ s hear i ng t es t i m ony and ar gum entf r om couns el , the tr i al courtdeni ed C o o p e r’s m o tio n to su p p re ss a n d o rd e re d th a t “a ll ev id e n c e d isc o v e re d d u rin g th e se a rc h is ad m issi b le at tri al. ” T h e tri al co u rtd id n o t sup p o rtit s co n clus ion w ith an alys is on the re co rd
o r i n th e w ri tte n o rd e r. ¶7. C ooper w as convi ct ed, and the C our t of A ppeal s af f i r m ed on appea l , f

i ndi ng thatt he anonymous t i p w as s uf

f i ci entf orE dney t o m ake the i ni t i al i nves t i gat ory s t op. A nal yzi ng 4

### Id. at *5 (¶23) ( ci ting Ba ker v. State , 991 So. 2d 185, 186 ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2008) ). 5 

### Cooper , 2013 WL 5614321, at *4. 6

### Id. at *6 (¶ 28 ). 7

### Dies v. State , 926 So. 2d 910, 917 ( Mis s. 2006). 8 

### 4 th e tip ’s re liab ili ty , the c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e “ a n o n y m o u s tip c o n tain e d su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to
w arr antf

ur theri nves t i gat i on” bec aus e i t“w as bas ed on f r es h, f i r s t - hand i nf

or m at i on
w itn e ss e d b y th e a n o n y m o u s c a ller, w h o g a v e d e tails a b o u t th e rac e an d se x o f th e su sp e c ts al ong w i th the cri m i nal act i vi ty goi ng on atthe part i cul arl ocat i on on U ni on St r eet ” and b ec au se the b lock w as k n o w n fo r h ea v y d rug -traffi ck ing a cti v ity . A cc o rdin g to the C o u rt 5 of A ppeal s , thes e f

act s , t ogetherw i th Edney’ s r ecogni t i on of Cooperf r om pr i ordrug- r el at ed compl ai nt s af

t erarr i vi ng t o i nves t i gat e the t i p, “corr obor at ed the anonymous t i p and gave the
o ffic e rs r e a so n a b le s u sp icio n to m a k e a n in v e stig a to ry sto p .” F u rth e r, th e c o u rt fo u n d b o th 6 exigentcir cum st ances an d p robable cause t o m ake the w arr antl ess entry i nto the h om e, arr est C ooper , and s ei ze the bag of ecs t as y. 7 ¶8. C ooper f

i l ed a pet i t i on f

or w r i t of cert i or ar i w i th thi s C our t , ar gui ng that the C our tof A ppeal s “i ncorr ect l y appl i ed the l aw conce rni ng ‘ r eas onabl e s us pi ci on’ bas ed on an
a n o n y m o u s tip su ffic ien t to w a rra n t an in v e stig a to ry sto p .” B e c a u se th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
r eac hed the corr ectr es ul t , butf orthe w r ong r eas ons , w e gr ant ed C ooper ’ s pet i t i on. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶9 . W e em ploy a m i xed s t andar d of r evi ew f

or Fo urt h A m end m ent cl ai m s. 8 De t e r mi n a t i o n s o f

r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n a n d p r o b a b l e c a u s e a r e s u b j e c tt o d e n o v o r e v i e w,

### Id. 9 

### SeeU.S. Const . ame nd IV; Mis s. Const . art 3, §23. 10 

### Willia mso n v. S

tate , 876 So. 2d 353, 355 ( Mis s. 2004) ( quoting Singleta ry v. Sta te , 11 

### 318 So. 2d 873, 876 (Mi ss . 1975) ). 5 w hi l e det erm i nat i ons of “hi s t or i cal f

act s [ ar e] r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence and
c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s s ta n d a rd s .” 9 A N A L Y S IS E dney’s A ttem

pted Stop of

Cooper ¶10. T he Four th A m end m ent of t he U . S
. C on st i tut i on and A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 23 of the M i s s i s s i pp i Cons t i tut i on guar ant ee a per s on’ s r i ghtt o be f r ee f r om unr eas onabl e s ear ches and
s ei zur es . T hi s C our tpr evi ous l y has f ound: 10 Pol i ce a ct i vity i n pr event i ng cr i m e, det ect i ng vi ol at i ons , m aki ng i dent i f i cat i ons , and i n a ppr ehendi ng c r i m i nal s may be di vi ded i nt o thr ee types of act i on: ( 1) V ol unt ar y con vers at i on: A n of f i cerm ay appr oach a per s on f or the p u rpo se o f en g ag ing in a v o lun tary c o n v ersa ti o n n o m att er w h at facts are know n t o t he of

f i cersi nce i ti nvol ves no f or ce and no det ent i on of the per s on i nt ervi ew ed; ( 2) I nves t i gat i ve s t op and t empora ry det ent i on : T o st op and tem p o ra rily d e tain is no t an arr e st, an d the ca se s h o ld tha t giv e n re a s o n a b le ci r cumst ance s an of

f i cerm ay s t op and det ai n a pe r s on t o r es ol ve an ambi guous situ a tio n w ith o u t h a v in g s u ffic ien t k n o w led g e to ju stify a n a rre st; (3 ) A rre st: A n arr es tm ay be made onl y w hen the of f i cerhas pr obabl e ca us e. 11 ¶1 1 . S o it i s c lea r th a t bef or e c o n d u cti n g an inv esti g atory , o r T erry stop , o ffi ce rs are re q u ire d to h a v e “ re a so n a b le s u sp icio n , g ro u n d e d in sp e c ific a n d a rticu lab le f a c ts, th a t a per s on they enc ount erw as i nvol ved i n a f el ony. . . or‘ s om e obj ect i ve mani f es t at i on thatt he

### Id. (e mpha si s added) (quo ting Flo yd v. State , 500 So. 2d 989, 992 ( Mis s. 1986)) ; 12 

### see also Terry v. Ohio , 392 U . S. 1, 88 S. C t . 1868, 20 L . E d. 2d 889 ( 1968) 

### . Fl oridav . J. L. , 529 U. S. 266, 270-271, 120 S. Ct . 1375, 1378-1379, 146 L. Ed. 2d 13 

### 25 4 (2 00 0). Ala ba ma v. Wh ite , 496 U. S. 325, 328-329, 110 S. Ct . 2412, 11 0 L. Ed. 2d 301 14 

### (1990)
. Id.

15 

### J.L . , 529 U. S. at 270 ( quoting Wh ite , 496 U. S. at 329)
. 16 

### Wil li amson , 876 So. 2d at

355 (quoting Floyd, 749 So. 2d at 118). 17 

### 6 per s on s t opped i s ori s aboutt o be engaged i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty. ’ ” R eas onabl e s us pi ci on 12
can a r i s e f

r om an off

i cer ’ s per s onal observat i ons , a t i p by a t rus t ed pol i ce i nf or m ant , or by anonymous t i p. A nd an anonymous t i pst er ’ s “ver aci ty, ” “r el i abi l i ty, ” and “ bas i s of 13 know l edge” ar e r el evantcons i der at i ons i n es t abl i s hi ng r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. 14 ¶1 2 . A lth o u g h th e U . S
. S u p rem e C o u rtp rev iou sly h as o p ined that “a n an o n y m o u s tip
a lo n e s e ld o m d e m o n stra tes th e in fo rm a n t’s b a sis o f k n o w led g e o r v e ra c ity ,” it also h a s h e ld 15 th a t “ th e r e a re s itu a tio n s in w h ic h a n a n o n y m o u s tip , s ui tabl y cor r obor at ed , ex h ib its ‘sufficient ind ici a o f reli ab il ity to p rov ide re a so n ab le su sp ici o n to m ak e the inv esti g atory
s t op. ’ ” W e have hel d that“[ r ] easona bl e s us pi ci on i s depende ntupon the cont entof t he 16 in fo rm a tio n p o ss e ss e d b y th e d e tain in g o ffic e r a s w e ll as its d e g re e o f re liab ili ty . B o th fac tors – q u an ti ty an d q u ali ty – are co n side red in the ‘t o tal ity o f th e c ir cu m stan ce s. ’” 17 ¶13. So w e ar e l ef

t t o det erm i ne w hether an anonymous t i p – “young m en, young bl ack
m en, a r e s t andi ng outon the s i dew al ks , c orner s , s el l i ng drugs ” atthe 500 bl ock of U ni on

### Adams v . Wi ll iams , 407 U. S. 143, 147, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 ( 1972). 18 

### McC lellan v. Sta te , 34 So. 3d 548, 550 ( Mis s. 2010). 19

### Id
. 20

### Id . at 552. 21 

### 7 S tre e t – d e m o n stra tes the tip ste r’s v e ra c ity , relia b ili ty , an d b a sis o f k n o w led g e to su p p o rt a fin d in g o f re a so n a b le s u sp icio n b e fo re E d n e y sto p p e d C o o p e r. W e fin d th a t itd o e s n o t. ¶1 4 . T h is C o u rt p rev iou sly h a s fou n d an o n y m o u s ti p s p rov iding p o li ce w ith m u ch m o re det ai l ed i nf

or m at i on t han the t i p i n the i ns t antcas e t o be “v agu e” at the out s et , butthe of f i cer ’ s i ndepende ntinvest i gat i on and corr obor at i on of the det ai l s – bef

or e s t oppi ng t he
s us pect– es t abl i s hed r eas onabl e s us pi ci on f oran i nves t i gat ory s t op. 18 ¶15. Fori ns t ance , i n Mc Clella n v. S ta te , th e C o lu m b u s p o lice d e p a rtm e n t r e c e iv e d a tip that a w h it e m ale a n d w h it e fe m ale h ad p u rch ase d large q u an ti ti es o f pse u d o ep h ed ri n e (a
m ai n i ngr edi entf

orm ethamphet ami ne) atthe l ocal Fr ed’s D ol l arSt or e. O f f i cer s f ur ther 19 i nves t i gat ed the t i p and gai ned a de s cr i pt i on of the vehi cl e, “an ol der
- m odel bl ue M us t ang
w i th an A l abama t ag . . . tr avel i ng eas ton the H i ghw ay 82 by pass , ” w hi ch then al l ow ed them t o l ocat e and m ai nt ai n s ur vei l l ance on the s us pect s a s they m ade a ddi t i onal pur chas es atotherpharm aci es . T hi s C our tobs erved thatthe i ni t i al de s cr i pt i on of the ca r“may have 20 been s om ew hatvague, ” butw e hel d the s t op w as pr operbeca us e the pol i ce a ccumul at ed
m any more det ai l s aboutthe s us pect s and thei ract i vi t i es bef or e maki ng the s t op. 21 ¶16. Si m i l ar l y, i n L in so n v. S ta te , a c as e w i th f act s s i m i l art o thi s cas e, pol i ce r ece i ved a t i p f r om a conf

i dent i al i nf

or m antthat“thr ee bl ack mal es w er e s el l i ng drugs att he i nt er s ect i on of

K i ngs w ay D r i ve and Brooks da l e D r i ve i n Pi c a yune, ” an a r ea know n f ori l l egal

### Lin son v. Sta te , 799 So. 2d 890, 892 ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2001)
. 22

### Id
. 23 

### Id. 24

### Id . at 896. 25 

### J.L ., 529 U.S. at

268. 26

### Id
. 27

### Id . at 268- 269. 28 

### 8 drug act i vi ty. I nves t i gat i ng t he t i p, a pol i ce of f i cerf ound the thr ee bl ack men s t andi ng at 22 the i nt er s ect i on as des cr i bed. H e t hen w at ched the m en appr oach tw o di f f er entvehi cl es f

or 23 br i ef m eet i ngs , af

t erw hi ch the vehi cl es w oul d dri ve aw ay, consi s t entw i th drug- tr af f i cki ng a c tiv ity
. O ffic e rs d e tain e d L in so n , an d a p a td o w n re v e a led a .2 2 c a lib e r re v o lv e r in

24 L i ns on’ s pant s pocket , w hi ch l ed t o hi s c onvi ct i on f orpos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a convi ct ed fel on . T he C ou rto f A pp eal s f ou nd that Linson’s 

### inve stigator y s top and f

ri sk we rejus ti fi ed becau se th e tip w as receiv ed from a co nfid ential info rmant wh o hadbeenreliable inthe p ast and be ca useof the s uspi ci ous a ctivi ty wi tne ss ed whe n inve stigating thefa ct s of thetip. 25 ¶17. T he U . S. Supr eme C our t al s o det erm i ned that an anonymous t i p that a “young bl ack
m al e s t andi ng ata part i cul arbus s t op and w ear i ng a pl ai d s hi r tw as carryi ng a gun” di d not
s how s uf f i ci enti ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i ty t o f

i nd r eas onabl e s us pi ci on f oran i nves t i gat ory s t op. 26 O f f i cer s i nves t i gat ed the t i p and f ound t hr ee bl ack mal es atthe bus s t op, and one of t hem

– J . L. – was w e a r i ng a pl a i d s hi r t . O f f i c e r s f r i s ke d J
. L an d f

ou nd a gu n; he w a s t he n 27
c h a rg e d fo r c a rry in g a c o n c e a led fire a rm w ith o u t a lic e n se a n d p o s s e s sin g a fire a rm w h ile underthe age of

18. T he C our tconcl uded, “[ a] l l the pol i ce ha d t o go on i n t hi s cas e w as 28

### Id . at 274. 29

### Id. 30 

### Wh ite , 496 U. S. at 332. 31 

### Id. at 327. 32

### Id. 33 

### Id
. 34 

### 9 the bar e r eportof

a n unknow n, unacc ount abl e i nf or m antw ho nei therexpl ai ned how he knew
a b o u t th e g u n n o r s u p p lie d a n y b a s is fo r b e li e v in g h e h a d in s id e in fo rm a tio n a b o u t J .L .” 29 A ccor di ngl y, the C our tf ound thatpol i ce l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o make the i ni t i al s t op and the f rui tof the unl aw f

ul s ear ch – the gun – w as pr oper l y s uppr es s ed. 30 ¶1 8. A n anonymous t i p t hatacc ur at el y pr edic t s t he s us pect ’ s f utur e beha vi or , as det erm i ned af

t ercorr obor at i on of

the f act s by i ndepende ntpol i ce i nves t i gat i on, can pr ovi de
r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o c onducta n i nves t i gat ory s t op. Fori ns t ance , i n A la b a m a v. W h ite , 31 pol i ce r ece i ved an a nonym ous t i p thatW hi t e w oul d be l eavi ng f r om “235- C L ynw ood T err ace A part m ent s ata p art i culart i m e i n a br ow n Pl ym outh s t at i on w agon w i th the r i ght taillig h t l e n se b ro k e n , th a t sh e w o u ld b e g o in g to D o b e y ’s M o tel, a n d th a t sh e w o u ld b e in p o sses sion o f ab o u t an o u n ce o f co ca ine in side a b row n attac h é c ase . ” Inv esti g ators 32 obs erve d a w oman i n the br own ve hi c l e a s de s c r i be d, l e a vi ng bu i l di ng 23 5 o f Lynw ood T err ace A part m ent s and dr i vi ng the m os td i r ectr out e t o the mot el
. O f f i cer s conduct ed an 33 i nves t i gat ory s t op j us tbef or e s he r eac hed the m ot el a nd di s cover ed m ar i j uana i n the att aché
c a se a n d c o c a in e in h e r p u rse . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt sp e c ifica lly n o ted th a t this t i p, s tandi ng 34

### Id . at 329 ( em phas is adde d). 35 

### Id . at 332. 36

### Id. 37 

### 10 al one, woul d not

hav e j us t i

f i ed a T er r y s t op . B ut , becaus e t he t i p – af t ercorr obor at i on by 35 p o lice – a c c u ra tely p re d icte d W h ite’s fu tu re b e h a v io r, itd e m o n stra ted a “ sp e c ial fa m ili a rity
w ith [th e su sp e c t’s] af

fa ir s ” w h ic h in tu rn im p lied th a t th e tip ste r h a d “ a c c e ss to re liab le i nf or m at i on aboutthati ndi vi dual ’ s i l l egal a ct i vi t i es . ” A s s uch, the C our the l d thatther e w as 36
s uf f i ci enti ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i ty t o j us t i f

y an i nves t i gat ory s t op. 37 ¶19. C ons i der i ng the “t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s ” i n the cas e bef or e us t oday, w e f

i nd thatthe anonymous t i p l acke d s uf f i ci ent“ i ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i ty” t o f

or m r eas onabl e s us pi ci on bef or e s t oppi ng C ooper . T he t i p w as s i gni f i cant l y les s detai l ed than thos e i n W hite and McClel lan , w ith ju st a g e n e ra l d e sc rip tio n o f th e ra c e a n d g e n d e r o f th e s u sp e c t(s), a g e n e ric al l egat i on of

i l l egal drug ac t i vi ty, and t he gene r al ar ea i n w hi ch the ac t i vi ty w as occurr i ng. U nl i ke L inson , th e ca ller d id n o t i d e n tify th e n u m b e r o f m e n e n g a g in g in ill e g a l d ru g a c tiv ity
ora s peci f

i c l ocat i on w her e thes e eve nt s occurr ed. A nd, unl i ke J . L. , ther e w as no i dent i f i cat i on of

the s us pect s by phys i cal attr i but es , s uch as cl othi ng, orotherdi s t i ngui s hi ng features. ¶2 0 . B e c a u se th e tip ste r w a s v a g u e in his or he r des cripti o n , th e re w e re n o d e tails
su g g e sti n g th a t th e tip ste r p o ss e ss e d “ in sid e in fo rm a tio n ” a b o u t C o o p e r’s id e n tity o r h is i nvol vementi n al l eged drug tr af f i cki ng on U ni on Str eet . L i kew i se, the t i p cont ai ned no p re d ic tiv e in fo rm a tio n to te s t th e tip s te r’ s b a s is o f k n o w le d g e o r v e ra c ity
.

### 11

¶ 2 1 . O f e q u a l im p o rta n c e is th e fa c t th a t E d n e y c o n d u c ted n o in d e p e n d e n t in v e stig a tio n to
corr obor at e the f

ew det ai l s pr ovi ded i n the t i p or t o accumul at e more i nf or m at i on aboutthe al l eged drug tr af

f i cki ng act i vi ty before s t oppi ng C ooper . Edne y a ndSmi th mer el y pr ocee ded t o the 500 bl ock and a t t empt ed t o s t op C ooperand W r i ght , the f i r s tbl ack mal es t hey obs erved i n the vi ci nity. W hi l e Edney’ s know l edge of C ooper ’ s i dent i ty f

r om pr i or nar c ot i c s - r e l a t e d c ompl a i nt s may o nl y s l i gh t l y b ol s t e rthe t i p’ s c r e di bi l i ty, thi s f a c ta l one does notel evat e an otherw i s e unr el i abl e t i p t o the l evel of cr eat i ng r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. E ven the mostdet ai l ed of t i ps , as i n W

h ite , d id n o t g iv e rise to re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to conducta T

er r y sto p u n til af

t eri nv est i gati on of the d et ai l s. ¶ 2 2 . R a th e r th a n s o le ly r e ly in g o n th e a re a ’s r e p u ta tio n fo r d ru g tra ffic k in g a n d h is f ami l i ar i ty w i th C ooper ’ s i dent i ty, w hi ch sa ys l i t t l e as t o w hatC ooperw as doi ng on the 500 bl ock of U ni on s tr eetthatm orni ng, E dney s houl d have acc um ul at ed addi t i onal “s peci f i c and
art i cul abl e f

act s ” t o de t erm i ne i f

a r eas onabl e bas i s exi s t ed t o bel i eve Cooperw as engage d in the il leg a l sa le o r p o ss e ss io n o f n a rc o tics , sim ilar to th e c o u rse o f a c tio n o ffic e rs to o k in L inson . ¶23. H avi ng es t abl i s hed thatE dney l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o conducta T erry s t op,
w e m u st n o w a n a ly z e th e fa c ts o f th e s to p to d e ter m in e if E d n e y ’s in iti a l in ter a c tio n w ith C o o p e r w a s a n a c tu a l T er r y s t op. W he the rthe s top im

pl i c ate s the Four th Am e ndm e nt .

### Floyd v. Cit y of Cry st al Springs , 749 So. 2d 110, 114 ( Mis s. 1999); 38 

### Singleta ry , 318 So. 2d at 876. 39 

### Terry , 392 U . S. at15 

### . 40Id
. at19, n. 16. 41 

### U.S . v. Men den ha ll, 446 U. S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 ( 1980); 42 

### Go ff v. Sta te , 14 So. 3d 625, 641 ( Mis s. 2009). Flo rida v. Bost

ick , 5 01 U . S. 4 29 , 4 34 , 1 11 S
. C t . 2 38 2, 2 38 6, 1 15 L . E d. 2d 389 43 

### (1991) (quoting Cali

fornia v. Hodari

, 499 U . S. 621, 628, 111 S. C t . 1547, 1552, 113 L . E d. 2d 690 ( 1991) 

### ). 12 ¶24. The c ons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i on a gai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and sei zures app l i es equal l y t o “s ei zur es of t he per s on, i ncl udi ng br i ef i nves t i gat ory s t ops ” i nvol vi ng t he 38

“ tem p o ra ry d e ten tio n ” o f a su sp e c t. S o , C o o p e r m u st h a v e b e e n “s e ize d ” o r “ tem p o ra rily 39 40 det ai n[ ed] ” by Edney bef or e hi s f l i ghtf r om ques t i oni ng t o tr i ggerFour th A m endment pr ot ect i on. A s the Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n T erry : O bvi ous l y, notal l per s onal i nt er cour s e betw een pol i cemen and ci t i zens i nvol ves “s ei zur es ” of

per s ons . O nl y w hen the of f i cer , by m eans of

phys i cal f or ce ors how of

a uthor i ty, ha s i n s om e w ay r es tr ai ned the l i berty of a ci t i zen m a y w e c o n c lu d e th a t a “ s e iz u re ” h a s o c c u rr e d .” 41 ¶2 5. Fur t her , a s us pecti s “ s e i z e d
. . . o nl y i f , i n vi e w of

al l of t he ci r cumst ance s su rro u n d in g th e in c id e n t, a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e b e liev e d th a t h e w a s n o t fre e to le a v e .” S o lo n g a s a p e rs o n fe e ls fr e e to “ to d is re g a rd th e p o lic e a n d g o a b o u t h is b u s in e s s ,”

42 the enc ount erw oul d be cons i der ed cons ens ual , w i th no r eas onabl e s us pi ci on r equi r ed. 43 ¶2 6 . W e fi n d that the i n it ial en co u n ter b etw ee n E d n ey an d C o o p er w as ne ith er v o lun tary
n o r c o n se n su a l. E d n e y atte m p ted to d e tain C o o p e r w ith a sh o w o f a u th o rity b y fla sh in g h is bl ue l i ght s and comm andi ng C oopert o “ come her e and l etm e t al k t o you f ora mi nut e. ” A

### Alth ou ghwe h ave n ot squarelyaddressed th e issue of wh ether th e use o f blu e lights 44 

### is a s how of auth ority amounting t o a “ se izure ” f or Four th Am endm ent

purpos es , other jurisd iction s have andhave answ ered this questio n inthe affirmativ e. See Stat e v . GarciaCa ntu , 253 S. W.3d 236, 245 n. 43 ( Tex. Crim
. App. 2008) (“useof ‘ bluefl as her s’ or pol ic e em ergenc y li ghts ar e f

re quently he ld s uff

ic ie nt t o cons titut e a

det ention”wh ile useof “ a patrolcar s potl ight” doe s not al one s uff

ic e to establis h a “ se izure ” but is a c ontributing f a c t or) ; C om monwealt

h v. Smigl

iano , 694 N. E.2d 341, 343-344 ( Mas s. 1998) (wher e an officer activ ated h is blu e lights b ehin d defen dant’s sto pp ed car an d go t out of h is cruiser to approachd et er

mined by the c ourt

to bea “ se izure ” be ca

use“a re as onabl e pe rs on, on the a c t i vat i onof

apo l i c e c ar ’ s bluel i ght s , wo ul d b e l i e vethat heor s hei s no t

f r e e t o l eave” ); Stat e v . Year gan , 958 S. W. 2d 626, 629-630 (Tenn. 1997) (def endant “s ei ze d” whe n off

ic er fol lowe d him

int o a parking lot

and a ctivate d thecr

uis er ’s blueli ghts ). Ho da ri , 49 9 U .S. at 6 26 (emph asis in o rigin al). 45 

### Id. at 622-623. 46

### Id . at 623. 47

### Id . at 626- 628. 48 

### Id . at 629. 49 

### 13 r eas onabl e per s on i n t he sa m e si tuat i on w oul d notbe gi ven the i m pr es s i on thathe w as f r ee t o “di s r egar d t he pol i ce a nd go abouthi s bus i nes s . ” B utouri nqui ry does notend her e. 44 ¶27. I n Cali

fornia v. Hodari , the U . S. Supr eme C our t hel d that , abs ent the us e of phys i cal for ce, a “sei zure” requi res s ubm is s i on to an o ffi ce r’s sho w o f au tho ri ty. In Hodari , a gr oup 45 of youths w ho had gat her ed on t he str eetdi s per s ed and t ook fl i ghtw hen an unm arked pol i ce carbegan t o appr oach. B ef or e he w as phys i cal l y det ai ned by of f i cer s , H odar i abandone d 46
a s m al l r oc k of

c r a c k c oc a i ne . The Su pr e me Cou r tf ou nd tha tthe d e f

e nd a ntwas not 47 “s ei zed” atthe t i m e he a bandoned the drugs beca us e H odar i d i d notcompl y w i th the det ai ni ng of

f i cer ’ s s how of

a uthor i ty – an or dert o hal t . R ather , H odar i w as “s ei zed” att he 48 t i m e he w as t ackl ed by pol i ce, w hi ch occ urr ed af t erhe aba ndoned the drugs. So t he 49

### Id
. 50

### Il li noisv. Wardl

ow , 5 2 8 U . S
. 1 1 9 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 0 S
. C t. 6 7 3 , 1 4 5 L . E d
. 2 d 57 0 (20 0 0 ). 51 

### Id. 52 

### 14 e v id e n ce o f th e c rac k co ca ine w as n o t th e fru ito f an il lega l sei zu re, an d w as p ro p e rly
a d m itt e d a t trial. 50 ¶2 8. L i ke Ho dari , C o o p er did no t y iel d t o E d n ey ’s sho w of au tho ri ty – a c o m m a n d to “come her e and l etm e t al k t o you. ” I ns t ead, he i m m edi at el y began to fl ee aft erhear i ng E d n ey ’s co m m an d
. T h u s, w e find that – ev en tho u g h the o ffi ce rs l ac k ed rea so n ab le
s us pi ci on t o conducta T erry sto p – C o o p e r w a s n o t “s e ize d ” u n til af t erhe ra n, di s car ded the drugs , and w as det ai ned by E dney. S o w e af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s deni al of C ooper ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s – notbeca us e the of f i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on s uf f i ci entf ora T erry s t op – butbeca us e the T

erry s t op nevert ook pl ace . E dney’s P urs uit

and A r r es t

of Cooper ¶29. A l though E dney l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o conducta T er r y s t op bef

or e hi s i ni t i al interac ti o n w ith C o o p er, ba sed u p o n the to tal ity of th e circu m stan ce s, w e fi n d th at C o o p er’s flig h t g av e rise to rea so n ab le su sp ici o n su ffi cien t f o r E d n ey to fo ll o w in p u rsuit. O n this iss u e , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s d e ter m in e d th a t “[h ]ea d lo n g flig h t — w h e re v e r it o c c u rs — is th e c o n su m m a te a c t o f e v a sio n : It is n o t n e c e ss a rily in d ica tiv e o f w ro n g d o in g , b u t itis
cert ai nl y s ugges t i ve of

s uch. ” Fur therm or e, “nervous , evas i ve beha vi ori s a pert i nentf act or 51 i n det erm i ni ng r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. ” O n the otherhand, the Supr eme C our tal s o has f ound 52 thatw her e an of

f i cer , lacki ng r eas onabl e s us pi ci on orpr obabl e ca us e, “appr oache s an

### Id. (c iting Florida v . Royer , 460 U. S. 491, 498, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 53 

### (1983) ). Id. (quoting Florida v . Bos tick , 501 U. S. at 437)
. 54 

### That a s top oc cur

re d in a “hi gh crime area” is a “per mi ss ibl e c onte xtua l 55 

### cons ide rati on[] in a Terryana lys is .” Wardl ow , 528 U . S. at124 

### (c iting Adams , 407 U. S. at 144, 147- 148). See Elkins v. M

cKen zie , 86 5 S o. 2 d 1 06 5, 1 08 3-1 08 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3) (w arrantless 56 

### entryinto a ho me justifiedif the state canpro ve th e p re se n ce o f “exig ent circumstances,” inc luding hot pur sui t of

a s uspe ct ed f

el on, the pos sibil it

y that e vide ncein t

he r es ide ncemay be de stroye d or r em oved, and danger to t he l ive s of

off ic er s or othe rs in t

he r es ide nce .) 15 i ndi vi dual , the i ndi vi dual has a r i ghtt o i gnor e the pol i ce a nd go abouthi s bus i nes s . ” A nd 53

“‘ any r ef us al t o cooper at e, w i thoutm or e, does notf urni s h the mi ni m al l evel of obj ect i ve justi fi ca ti o n n ee d ed for a d eten ti o n o r seizu re.’ ” 54 ¶3 0 . B u t th is w as n o t a situ ati o n w h ere C o o p er w as m ere ly ex erc isi n g h is r igh t t o d isr eg ard the pol i ce a nd go abouthi s bus i nes s . I n f act , attr i al , E dney t es t i f i ed that , as he exi t ed the
v e h ic le to a p p ro a c h C o o p e r, “ M r. C o o p e r w a s a lr e a d y s ta rt in g to b a c k o f f a l ittle b it.” C learly, this w as a n ac t of ev asio n u p o n ap p roa ch o f po li ce , w h ich, co m b ined w ith E d n ey ’s pr i orknow l edge of

the ar ea’ s r eput at i on f ordrug tr af

f i cki ng and cri m i nal act i vi ty and 55 hi s t ory as s oci at ed w i th C ooper , gave r i s e t o a s us pi ci on thatC ooperw as s om ehow as s oci at ed
w i th i l l egal act i vi ty. S o , ev e n b e fo re s e e in g C o o p e r th ro w th e b a g o f e c sta sy in to th e w a ll, E dn ey w as j ust i fi ed in hi s pursui tof C oo per f or the p urpose o f com plet i ng his T erry s t op. Wa r r a n tle s s E n tr

y in to th e Ho me ¶31. A ft er det erm i ning t hat the T er r y s t op w a s s up po r t e d b y r e a s on a bl e s us pi c i on , t he C ou rtof A pp eal s con cl ud ed t hat C oo per’ s f l i gh tand aban do nm ent of the ecst asy gav e ri se t o exi gentci r cumst ance s – hot pursui t– w hi ch j us t i f i ed the w arr ant l es s entry i nt o t he 56

### Cooper , 2013 WL 5614321, at **5-6 (¶¶25, 27)
. 57

### Id. 58

### Id. ; see also Mis s. Code Ann. § 99-3- 7(1) (Re v. 2007)
. 59 

### 16 reside n ce an d the a rrest of C o o p er. A nd, beca us e of f i cer s w er e i n the r es i dence underthe 57 exi ge ntc i r c ums t a nc e o f h otp ur s ui t , the y w e r e p e r mi t t e d t o “ s e i z e e vi de nc e i n pl a i n vi ew dur i ng the cour s e of

thei rs ear ch. ” A ddi t i onal l y, the courtf ound thatthe con cern f or the 58 d estruc ti o n o f dru g s w as a n ex igen cy su p p o rt ing the w arran tl ess s ea rch . A n d the c o u rt concl uded t hatt her e w as proba bl e caus e f orhi s ar r es t , si nce Edney w i tnes s ed C oopert hr ow the bag of

ecs t as y i n t he w al l , thus gi vi ng r i s e t o a r eas onabl e bel i ef thatthe of

f ens e of pos s es s i ng drugs had occ urr ed i n hi s pr es ence . 59 ¶32 . W e need no taddress the qu est i on of w hetherexi gen tci rcum st ances or probab l e cause justi fi ed E d n ey ’s en try into the h o m e to a rrest C o o p er. T h e issu e p rese n ted in C o o p er’s
m ot i on t o s uppr es s a nd i n hi s br i ef t o the C our tof

A ppeal s w as w hetherthe ec s t as y w as the “f rui tof an i l l egal sea r ch of

t he r es i dence w her ei n t he def endantw as l ocat ed. ” I n hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , C ooperal l eged thatthe “of f i cer s di d nothave a s ear ch w arr antt o s ear ch the
r es i dence thatthe def

endantw as i n, nordi d any of the ci r cumst ance s exi s tthatf al l w i thi n t he
enumer at ed exc ept i on[ s ] t o the w arr antr equi r ement . ” So, accor ding to C ooper , E dney vi ol at ed the pr ohi bi t i on of unreasonabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . Such an ar gum entand assi gn m ent of

err or i s l og i cal , becau se E dn ey sa w C o o p er ab and on the d rugs i n the hou se b efo re h e w as d etaine d , an d there fore , the d rug s w ere n o t th e fr u ito f his arrest. H o w ev er, C ooperl acke d s t andi ng t o chal l enge the w arr ant l es s sea r ch of t he hom e beca us e he l acke d a l egi t i m at e and r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy ther e.

### Mi nn es ot a v . Ol son , 4 95 U .S. 91, 95, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 ( 1990) 60 

### (e mpha si s a dded) (“ ‘[ A] t t he ve ry c ore[of

theFourth Ame ndme nt] st ands theright of a man to retre at int o his homeand the be fre e f rom unre as onabl e gove rnm ent alint rus ion. ’” ); Pa yton v. NewY

ork , 445 U. S. 573, 589-590, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 6 39 (19 80) (quoting Sil

verman v . U. S. , 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S. Ct. 679, 683, 5 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1961). Ols on , 495 U. S. at 95. 61 

### Id. 62 

### See Ho pso n v. S tate , 625 So. 2d 395, 401 ( Mis s. 1993). 63 

### Id. 64

### Id
. 65 

### 17 ¶33. T he Four th A m endmentof the U
. S
. C on st i tuti on an d A rt i cl e 3, Sect i on 23 of the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i tuti on prot ect s o c c u p a n ts of a home f r om w arr ant l es s and noncons ens ual entry by pol i ce. B utt o cl ai m pr ot ect i on underthe Four th A m endment , a def endantm ust 60 hav e a “l egit i m at e expec t at i on of pri vacy i n the i nv aded place, ” typ i cal l y restri ct ed to tho se 61
w h o re n t, ow n , o r o th e rw ise re sid e in th e d w e lli n g . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt e x ten d e d th is pr ot ect i on t o “ overni ghtgue s t s ” as “ [ s ] t ayi ng ove rni ghti n another ’ s hom e i s a l ongs t andi ng s o c ia l c u s to m th a t s e rv e s fu n c tio n s re c o g n iz e d a s v a lu a b le b y s o c ie ty .” 62 ¶34. T hi s C our t al s o has i dent i f i ed s i tuat i ons w her e s us pect s , pr es ent on t he propert y of another( pr es um abl y w i th perm i s s i on) , l acke d a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy. For

63 i ns t ance , i n Ho

p s o n v . S ta te , thi s C our tf ound thatthe def

endantl acke d an expe ct at i on of pr i vacy f ordrugs sei zed dur i ng t he se ar ch of hi s si s t er ’ s hous e. T he s ear ch w as the pr oduct 64
o f a sti n g o p era ti o n , w h ich re v e a led H o p so n ’s dru g -traffi ck ing ac ti v ity w ith in h is si ster’s h o m e. In fi nd i ng that H op son lacked a legi t i m at e exp ect at i on of pri vacy i n h i s si st er’s

65 h o m e , th e C o u rt re lied o n th e fa c t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t d id n o t h a v e a k e y to th e h o u se ; h e d id

### Id

. 66

### Id. 67 

### 18 nothave the f

r eedom t o come an d go as he pl eas ed ort o exer ci s e “c ontr ol ” overt he p re m ise s; a n d th a t h e m a in tain e d a p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e e lse w h e re . T h u s, h e w a s a “ g u e st” 66
w i t h no “c on tr ol ov e rthe pr e mi s e s t o s uc h a de gr e e tha the w ou l d h a ve a n e xp e c t a t i on of pr i vacy thatw oul d i nvoke hi s ri gh tt o obj ectt o the s ear ch and s ubs equents ei zur e of
c o n tr a b a n d p u rs u a n t to th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t.” 67 ¶35. H er e, i ti s cl earthatC ooperdi d nothave a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy w hen he ent er ed the hous e i n quest i on. C ooperadmi t t ed thathe di d notl i ve ther e, and Edney t es t i f i ed atthe hea ri ng o n t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s thathe knew the ac tual occupa ntof the home. F u rth e r, C o o p e r p ro v id e d a h o m e a d d re ss o n a d iffe re n t stre e t in G re e n v ill e a t th e tim e o f h is arrest. E dn ey als o tes t i fi ed thatC oo per had t o force open the d oo r t o en t er, w hich al so s ugges t s thathe di d nothave a r i ghtt o be i ns i de the dw el l i ng. B eca us e C ooperdi s car ded the
ecs t as y bef

or e bei ng s ei zed ordet ai ned by E dn ey, in a h om e i n w hi ch he di d nothave a
r ea s on a bl e e xp e c t a t i on o f p r i va c y, we f

i nd tha tthe s e a r c h of

the h ome a nd s e i z ur e of t he
ev iden ce w ere p rop er. CO NC L US I ON ¶36. T he off

i cer s l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o conducta T erry s t op of

C ooper . B ut
w h e n th e o ffic e rs in iti a lly a p p ro a c h e d C o o p e r a n d o rd e re d h im to “ c o m e h e re an d let m e talk t o you, ” C ooperf

ai l ed t o obey. I ns t ead, he r an befor e the of f i cer s exer ci s ed any phys i cal
re s tr ai nt . T her ef

or e, no T

erry st o p t o o k plac e. A n d be ca u se C o o p er l ac k ed st an d in g to chal l enge the s ear ch of the home t hatdi d notbel ong t o hi m and sei zure of the drugs he

### 19

di s car ded ther ei n, the tr i al courtcorr ect l y deni ed C ooper ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence obt ai ned i n t he s ear ch. W e af f i r m the j udgm ent s of

the C our tof A ppeal s and t he W as hi ngt on C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. ¶ 3 7 . CO NVI CTI ON OF PO S S ES S I ON OF ECS TAS Y W I TH I NTENT TO DI S T RI B UT E AN D S E N T E N C E OF S E V E N ( 7 ) Y E A R S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I SS I SS I PP I DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , W I TH TW O ( 2 ) YEARS TO S ERVE FOLLOW ED BY FI VE ( 5 ) YEARS P OST RELEAS E S UPERVI S I ON , W I TH CO NDI TI ON S , AFF I RM ED. S ENTENCE S HA LL RUN CO NSE CUTI VELY TO ANY OT HER S EN TE NCE CURRE NT LY BE I NG S ER VE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , LA M AR, KI TCHENS , CHANDL ER , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CO NCU R. PI ERCE, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . RAN DO LPH, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I T H O U T S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N .