FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , GOBEI L and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions f or r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Jul y 1, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 1 07

. TERRY v

. TH E STA TE.

P IP K I N , J u d ge.

A p p ellant J o se p h D a n i el Terry ap p eals his c o nv ic tio n f o r the misd e meano r

o f fense o f o bstru c t io n o f an o f f ic er. See OCGA § 1 6

- 10- 24 (a). W e agree w i t h

A p p ellant that the State f

a iled to meet its bu rd en o f pro o f a nd , thu s, that the trial c o urt

erro neo u sly d enied his mo tio n f o r a d i rec ted v erd ic t. A c c o rd ingly, w e rev erse the
j u d gment o f

c o nv ic tio n.

1

. The rec o rd b e f

o re u s s ho w s that A p p ellant w as ind ic ted f o r t h e o f f ense o f

f elo ny obstru c t io n o f an o f f ic er. See OCGA § 1 6

- 1 0- 24 (b). The ind ic t m ent alleged

that Ap p ellant “ k no w ingly a n d w i llf u lly o p p o s[ed ] B illy Fu ller, a law e nf o rc ement

o f f ic er

. . . in t he law f

u l d isc harge o f his o f

fic ial d u ties by of

f ering to d o v io lenc e to said

p erso n, by ad v anc ing in a n aggressiv e manner to w ard s s aid o f fic er w hile ho ld ing abaseball bat. ” A t A p p ellant’ s A p ril 2023 trial, the State p resented the testimo ny o f

Of f ic er Fu ller, as w ell as v ario u s v id e o rec o rd ings f ro m t he night in qu estio n. W hen

v iew ed in the ap pro p riate light, see C o a ls o n v

. S ta te , 237 G a. A p p

. 57 0, 57 0 ( 51 5 SE2d
882) ( 1 9 9 9 ), the State ’ s e v id enc e established as f o llo w s. I n the early mo rning ho u rs

o f A u gu st 4, 201 9 , Of

f ic er Fu ller w as p ark e d in his p atro l c ar in Ro c k mart, Geo rgia.

A t ap p ro ximately 2: 1 5 a. m. , an o f f ic er f ro m ano ther j urisd ic tio n who w a s t rav eling

thro u gh the area ask ed o n the p o lic e rad io w hether of f ic ers w ere f

amiliar w ith “ a man

and wo man [w ho ] w alk [] aro u nd to w n carrying a baseball bat. ” A c c o r d ing to t he rad io

c all, that o ff

ic er observ ed a man w ith a baseball bat -

- later id entif ied a s A p p ellant

- -

“ a nd a gu y o n a bik e and a f emale” trav eling o n a s id e walk near a well- k no w n bu siness

c alled “ Ho u s e o f China. ” W hile an o f f ic er c an be heard r emark ing o n the rad io that

the man wa s “ p r o b a bly j u st p laying a little night ball,” Of f ic er Fu ller and a sec o nd

o f f ic er resp o nd ed to “ c hec k it o u t. ”

Of f ic er Fu ller enc o u ntered the trio as he d ro v e so u th o n the ro ad o n w hic h the

trio was trav eling no rth. W hen Of f ic er Fu ller arriv ed in the area, “ the o nly thing [ he]

saw them d o i n g w as w alk ing on the sid ew alk , ” t ho u gh he a lso testif ied that it w as

u nu su al f o r so m e o ne to be w alk ing thro u gh the area w ith a b aseball bat at that time o f

2d ay. The o ff ic er exp lained that the trio r emained on the sid ew a lk , that they were no t

o n priv ate p ro p e rty o r near any v ehic les, a nd that the t r io w ere neither bo thering no r
threatening anyo ne. W hen t he o f f ic ers arriv ed at Ap p ellant’ s lo c atio n, Of fic er Fu ller

and the sec o nd o f

f ic er p u lle d t h e i r resp ec tiv e c ars alo ngsid e the c u rb w ith their

p assenger d o o rs to w ard the sid e w alk

. W hile b o t h o ffi ce r s a n d t h e ir resp ec tiv e v ehic les

w ere equ ip p ed w ith cameras, no ne o f tho s e cameras were tu rned o n b y the o f f ic e rs

d u ring their initial enc o u nter w ith A p pellant. A s to t hat enc o u nter , Of fic er Fu ller

testif ied as f o llo ws:
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: So I ar r i v e d o n lo c atio n j u st to basic ally a n interv iew , so an inv e stigato ry

- - an inv e stigativ e d etentio n a s to w hat w as go ing o n. [1 ]

[Pro sec u t o r]: A ll right.
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: I had j u st been c a lled by [the rep orting o f f ic er] in ref erenc e to [A p p ell a n t] being aro u nd the H o u se o f China, so they

c o u ld ’ ve po s sibly bro k e into it. So I ’ m u sing it as a n inv es t i g a t i v e d etentio n. I p u ll u p

. A s I p u ll u p , I tu rn o n my tak ed o w n lights, whic h is the tw o bright w hite lights th a t c o m e o n in f ro nt o f the light bar o n to p
o f t he car, and I f

lip o n the c ru ise lights. The c ru ise lights are o n the end , so they j u st light u p blu e

. They’ r e no t f lashing. There’ s no s iren. Uh, I step o u t o f t he c a r. As I step o u t of the c ar, I tell [A pp e llant] to d ro p the bat. [Pro sec u t o r]: A t that p o int, ho w f ar aw ay f ro m him w ere yo u ?

1 The area in w hic h this inc id ent o cc u rred is, at least in p art, resid ential.

3[Of f ic er Fu ller]: Pro bably 1 5 y ard s f ro m t he f ro nt o f my c ar.
[Pro sec u t o r]: Ok ay. So 1 5 yard s - - [Of f ic er Fu ller]: 30 f

eet.
[Pro sec u t o r]: - - ro u ghly, ro u ghly 30 f eet?
[Of f ic e Fu ller]: ( N o d d ed head in t he af firmativ e). S o I giv e him the c o mmand to d ro p the bat. He sa y s f u c k y o u and c o ntinu es to w alk
to ward me.
[Pro sec u t o r]: N ow , d id - - d id yo u initiate the c u rsing o r d id he?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: H e d id

. [Pro sec u t o r]: A ll right. Go ahead

. [Of f ic er Fu ller]: H e c o ntinu es walk ing to w ard s me, says f u c k yo u to m e, so I had p u lled my d u ty w eap o n o u t o f my ho lster and I ’ v e go t it d o w n by my sid e.
[Pro sec u t o r]: N ow , w hy d id yo u d o that?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: W ell, the sho rt d istanc e as it is, he c an clo se that d istanc e and hit me with the bat p rio r to me being able to unho lster. So

- - [Pro sec u t o r]: Ok ay.
[Of f ic er Fu ller]:

- - u nho lster and I’ m ho ld ing it at my sid e. I d o n’ t think he c a n ev en see it bec a u se there’ s no w a c a r in betw een u s. H e’ s at the f r o nt end o f m y c ar by this p o int, a nd I ’ m mo v ing to the bac k end o f my c ar, again, giv ing him the v erbal c o mmand to d ro p the bat. Fu c k yo u

. H e mak es it f

ro m there to the rea r o f m y c ar. I a gain: dro p the bat. N o

4c u r sing. Fu c k y o u

. A t this p o int, he’ s m ad e it to t he bac k o f my c ar a nd

he’ s tu rned p arallel w ith me. There’ s no barrier in betw e en u s anymo re. A t this p o int, he c an

- - he c an d o so me serio us d amage w ith that bat with the sho rt d istanc e t hat w e a r e

. I m ad e the d eterminatio n, I p o inted my d u ty w eap o n at him and gav e him a no ther v erbal c ommand to d ro p the bat. At that time, he f

lip p ed the bat. H e d id n’ t sw ing it at me. He did n’ t

o v e rhand thro w it lik e a baseball. H e f lip p ed it at me.
[Pro sec u t o r]: A ll right. I w ant to go bac k u p and go thro u gh this. So yo u said o riginally y’ all w ere abo u t 30 f eet?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: That’ s, yeah, f r om the f ro nt o f my car, so

-- a nd I ’m o n the o ther -

- o n the d riv er’ s sid e o f my c a r.
[Pro sec u t o r]: Ok ay. A nd ho w is he c arrying the bat?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: J u st at his sid e.

. . . . [Pro sec u t o r]: Ok ay. N o w , let’ s b e c lear. H e nev er r aised the bat?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: H e d id no t.
[Pro sec u t o r]: B u t he f

lip p ed the bat to w ard s yo u ?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: Yes.
[Pro sec u t o r attemp ts to f

lip t he w o o d en baseball b at bu t break s it]
[ Pro sec u to r ]: Ok ay. N o w , a t t hat p o int, w hat’ s go ing thro u g h y o u r mind ?

5[Of f ic er Fu ller] : I , a t this p o int, I ’v e alread y mad e the d eterminatio n that he’ s u nd er arrest f o r o bstru c tio n. I gav e him f o u r
c hanc es to d ro p the bat. I ’ m in a mark ed po lic e u nit. I ’m in u nif o r m. I ’ m
a

- - that’ s eno u gh id entif

ic a tio n in my eyes t o say the p o lic e gav e yo u a l a w f u l o rd er. At that po int, he’ s

- - and he’ s mad e me r aise my d u t y

w eap o n at him. H e w as go ing to j ail f o r o bstru ctio n.

A f ter f lip p ing t he bat, Ap p ellant w as instru c t ed to pu t his hand s behind his b ac k , bu t

he f a iled to c o mp ly; ac c o rd ing to Of f ic e r Fu ller, A p p ellant to o k a “ f ighting stanc e”

and w as su bsequ ently “ t ased

. ” I t was d u ring this po rtio n o f t h e alterc atio n that the

o f f ic ers’ c ameras w ere engaged

. 2

Later d u ring his direc t t estimo ny, Of f ic e r Fu ller ad dressed the “ legal d u ty” he

w as p e rf o rming at the time that he ap p ro a c hed A p p ellant, stating as f o llo w s:
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: Um. A ll right. So it’ s c o nsid ered an A R S sto p

. [Pro sec u t o r]: Exp lain that.

2 One o f the rec o rd ings c a p tu re d O ffi ce r F u l l e r s t a t ing as f o llo ws af ter A p p ellant

w as “ tased ” and p lac ed u nd e r arrest:
[The rep o rting of

fic er] c lic k ed o v er t o o u r channel

. . . as he w a s passing d o w n thro u gh here. Sees this d u de w a lk ing do w n t he street c arry i n g a bat. So , I p u ll u p o n him. H e’ s yelling and sc reaming as so o n as I p u ll u p

. So , I giv e v erbal co mmand s f or him to d ro p the bat. H e s t a r ts w alk ing
to ward s the c ar, he’ s lik e, “ f u c k y o u , d u h d u h d u h. ” So , I ’ m lik e [gestu res p u lling his f

irearm] “ d r o p the bat. ” A f ter I p o int it at him, he d ec id es to d ro p the bat.

6[Of

f ic e r F u ller]: Artic u lable reaso nable su sp ic io n, that t here is a c rime that’ s p o ssibly hap p ened o r its go ing to hap pen.
[Pro sec u t o r]: Ok ay.
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: A t that p o int [af ter learning]

. . . that [A p p ellant had b e e n seen] a ro und the Ho u se o f China, I do n’ t k no w if he’ s bro ke in t o it. I ’ m go ing to sto p him, talk t o him. I f I had been giv en the o p p o r tu nity
to send so mebo dy d o w n to the Ho use of China to see i f it had been bro k en into , w hile talk ing w ith M r. Terry, if he had gav e me the

o p p o rtu nity, w hy are yo u w alk ing aro u nd at tw o o ’ c lo c k in t he mo rning

w ith a baseball bat? H a d he o f giv en me a go o d reaso n: I ’ m af raid a d o g’ s go ing to attac k u s. Thank yo u , sir

. H a v e a nic e d ay. H e nev er gav e the

o p p o rtu nity to go f

r o m an A RS. H e w ent f

ro m A RS t o p r o b able c au se.

On cro ss- examinatio n, Of f ic er Fu ller ac k no w led ged t hat t h e r e had been no

r a d io traf f ic ind ic ating a b reak in at the H o u se o f China o r a ny w here el s e i n t h e

v ic inity. I n f

ac t, t he o ff

ic er ac k no w led ged that he w as simp ly ac ting “ w ith a hu nc h”

and t hat his so le f

o c u s d u ring the sto p w as o n A p p ellant to the exc lu sio n o f the o ther

tw o ind iv id u als. T he ind iv id u al o n the bik e ro d e aw ay du r ing the inc id ent bec au se he

w as no t ask ed t o sto p , and of f ic ers c o mmand ed the w oman to leav e the s c ene w itho u t

any f u rther inv estigatio n. A lso d u ring c ro s s- e xaminatio n, Of f ic er Fu ller c larif

ied his

earlier testimo ny c o nc e rning A p p ellant’ s p ath o f trav el, exp laining as f o llo ws:
[D e f ense c o u nsel]:

. . . . And so w hen yo u w ro te in yo u r r ep o rt a nd said yesterd ay [that A p p ellant] c o ntinu ed w alk ing to w ard m y d irec tio n, is this w hat yo u mean, that they’ re c o ntinu ing to w alk no rth?

7[Of f ic er Fu ller]: Yes.
[D e f ense c o u nsel]: Ok ay. I t gets a little -

- it’ s hard to d esc r ibe in

w o rd s, isn’ t it? right
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: (N o d d e d heard in the af f irmativ e)
[D e f ense c o u nsel]: M o st o f

the time w hen w e think so mebo d y is

w alk ing in ou r d irec tio n, w e think they’ r e lik e w alk ing d irec tly f ac e to f ac e to w ard u s.
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: Right
[D e f ense c o u nsel]: So I w ant to c la r i f y a n d mak e su re I

u nd erstand

. Ok ay? That’ s no t w hat yo u meant w hen yo u said that?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: N o ma’ am. I mea n t they were w alk ing in my d irec tio n w ith -

- my c ar w as in betw een u s.

. . . . [D e f ense Co u n s el]: So , they’ re c o ming in yo u r d irec tio n, bu t they’ re no t c oming at yo u ?
[Of f ic er Fu ller]: Right.

Of f ic er Fu ller also c larif

ied o n cro ss- examinatio n that A p p ellant w as ho ld ing the bat

in a d o w nw ard d irec t io n by his s i d e and t hat the bat w as sw inging “ d o w n next to
[A p pellant’ s] right leg” lik e “ one w o u ld sw ing yo u r arms w hen yo u w alk

. ”

82. W e no w tu rn to A p p ellant’ s a s sertio n that the State f ailed t o meet its bu rd en

o f p r o ving the o f

fense o f o bstru c tio n o f a n o f f ic e r

. Und er OCGA § 1 6

- 1 0- 24 (b ) ,
f elo ny o bstru c tio n o f an o f f ic er is co mmitted w henev e r one “ k no w ingly and w illf u lly

resists, o bstru c ts, o r o p p o s es any law enf o rc ement o f

f ic er

. . . in the law fu l d isc harge

o f his o r her o f

f ic ial du ties by o f

f ering o r d o ing v io lenc e to the perso n of s u c h o f f ic er. ”

The misd emeano r o f

f ense is c o mmitted w hen “ a p erso n w ho k no w ingly and w illf u lly

o bstru c ts o r hind ers any law enf o r c ement of

f ic er

. . . in the law f

u l d isc harge o f his o r

her o f f ic ial d u ties. ” OCGA § 1 6

- 1 0- 24 (a). A s the Geo rgia Su p r e m e Co u rt has

exp lained , “ [b]y its e xp ress terms, OCGA § 1 6 -1 0- 24 ap p lies o nly w hen t he d ef end ant

o bstru c ts o r hind ers a law e nf o rc ement o f

f ic er ‘ i n the la wfu l di

s cha rg e o f h i s o r h er

o ffi c i a l d u ti es

. ’ ” (Emp hasis in o riginal. ) Glen n v

. S ta te , 31 0 Ga. 1 1 , 25 ( 1) (c ) (849 SE2d

409 ) (2020). Thu s, u nd er either the greater o r lesser o f f ense, “ the State mu st p ro v e

that the o f

fic er w as in the law f

u l d isc harge o f his o f

f ic ial d u ties at the time o f the

o bstru c tio n. ” ( Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Ba co n v

. Sta te , 347 Ga. Ap p

. 6 89 ,

6 9 0 (820 SE2d 5 03) (201 8). I nd eed , “ [i]t is w ell settled that d etaining o r arresting a

p erso n w itho u t au tho rity t o d o so u nd er t he law d o e s no t c o nstitu t e th e law f u l

d isc h a rge o f the d u t ies o f a law enf o rc ement o ff

ic er, and , theref

o re, one who resists

9an u nlaw f

u l a rrest o r d etentio n d o es no t c o mmit the o f f ense o f o bstru c tio n. ” Glen n ,

31 0 Ga. at 25 (1 ) (c ).

To d etermine w hether Ap p e l l a n t o bstru c ted Of f ic er Fu ller here, “ w e f

irst mu st

d etermine whether [Of

f ic er Fu ller’ s] ac tio ns w ere law f ul d u ring his interac tio n w ith
[A p pellant], as w ell as [A p p ellant’ s ] right to end the enc o u nter. ” Jo hn s o n v

. S ta te , 36 3

Ga. A p p

. 1 2, 16 ( 1 ) (86 9 SE2d 1 7 7 ) ( 2022). W e c o nsid er t his qu e stio n by ap p lying the

f ramew o rk c reated by T

erry v

. O hi o , 39 2 U. S. 1 (88 SCt 1 86 8, 20 L E2d 889 ) (1 9 6 8).

See Jo hn so n , 36 3 Ga. at 1 6 (1 ). Und er this f ramew ork ,
there are at least three typ es o f po lic e- c itiz en e n c o u nters: v erbal

c o mmu nic atio ns t hat inv o l v e n o c o erc io n or d etentio n; b rief sto p s o r seiz u res that mu st be a c c omp anied by a reaso nable su sp ic io n; a nd arrests, w hic h c an be su p p o rted o nly by p ro bable c au s e.

I n a “ f irst- tier” e nc o u nter, o f

fic ers may a p p ro ac h c itiz e ns, ask f o r id entif ic atio n, and f

reely qu estio n the c itiz en w itho u t any basis o r belief that t he citiz en is inv o lv ed in c riminal ac tiv ity, as lo ng as the o f f ic ers d o
no t detain the c itiz en o r c reate the imp r e ssio n that the citiz en may no t leav e. So lo ng as a r e aso nable p erso n w ou ld f eel free to disregard the p o l i c e and go abo u t his bu s iness, the enc o u nter is c o nsensu al and no
reaso nable s u sp ic io n is requ ired

. I mp o rtantly, an o f f ic e r may n o t use f o rc e to e f

f e c tu ate a f

irst- tie r e nc o u nter as an o f f ic er in su c h a n
enc o u nt er h a s n o au tho r ity t o detain o r restric t the liberty o f a c itiz e n, and t he c itiz en has the right to w ithd raw f r o m the e nc o u nter o r r esist any
su c h u se o f

f o rc e w ith a p ro p o rtio nate u se o f f orc e.

10I n a “sec o nd

- tier” enc o u nter, w hen an of f ic e r d e v elo p s a
reaso nable, artic u lable su sp ic io n that the c itiz en is c ommitting o r has

c o mmitted a c rime, the o f

f ic er then has the au tho rity t o d etain the c itiz en f o r an inv estigativ e sto p , o r w hat has c o me to be k no wn a s a “Terry

s t o p

. ” I n a s e c o nd

- tier enc o u nter, the s u sp ec t’ s p hysic al resistanc e to his d etentio n is u nlaw f

u l. I n a sec ond

- tier enc o u nter, the o f f ic e r m a y also tak e reaso nable step s to pro tec t his saf ety a nd the saf

e ty o f o thers w hile d etaining the ind iv id u al.

I n a “ third -tier” enc o u nter, when a n o ff ic e r has pro bable cau se to believ e t hat an ind iv id u al is c o m m itting o r has c ommitted a c rime, the

o f f ic er is au tho riz e d to mak e an arrest and tak e the ind iv id u al i n to

c u s to d y. When an o f

f ic er with p ro bable c a u se seek s t o arrest a n ind iv id u a l, that p erso n is no t f ree to f lee o r resist the a r rest, altho ugh he retains the right no t to sp eak w ith the o ff ic er.
(Citatio ns, p unc tu atio n, a nd f o o tno te o m i t t e d

. ) S t

at e v

. Cop e l a n d , 3 10 G a

. 3 4 5, 351

- 352
(2) (b) (850 SE2d 7 3 6 ) ( 2020). Only the f irst- tw o tiers are relev ant here, and w e

ad d ress eac h in tu rn.
(a) To the extent that Of

f ic er Fu ller’ s enc o u nter w ith Ap p ellant w a s a f irst- tier

enc o unter

- - that, is, t hat Of f ic er Fu ller m erely intend ed to qu estio n Ap p ellant abo u t

his p res e n c e i n th e area w ith a baseball bat

- - A p p ellant w o u ld hav e been e ntitled to
igno re the o f

f ic er’ s qu estio ns, disregard his c o mmand s, and w a lk aw ay; A pp ellant’ s

exerc ise o f

tho se rights d o es no t amo u nt t o o bstru c tio n. See E wu mi v

. S t a te , 31 5 Ga.

A p p

. 6 56 , 6 6 2- 6 6 3, (1 ) (a) (7 27 SE2d 257 ) ( 201 2) (d ef end ant w alk ing a ro u nd an

11ap artment c o mp lex in a high- c rim e a r e a aro u nd mid night no t requ ired to sto p and

sp eak w ith o f

f ic er w ho w as in the area inv e stigating a s ho oting t hat resu lted in a bu llet
entering a resid enc e; t hu s, d e f end ant w as no t gu ilty o f obstru c t ing an o f f ic er by f ailing

to answ er the o f

f ic er’ s qu estio n o r ru nning aw ay). 3 Cf

. Bla ck v

. S ta t

e , 281 Ga. A p p

. 40,

44 ( 1 ) (6 35 SE2d 56 8) (2006 ) (“ [A ] citiz e n’ s ability to w alk a w ay or o therw ise av o id

a p o lic e o f

f i c er is the to u c hsto ne o f a f irst- tier enc o u nter. Ev en ru nning f ro m p o lic e

d u ring a f

irst- tier enc o u nter is w ho lly p ermissible. ” (Citatio n a n d p u n c tu atio n

o mitted .)).
Relying o n no thing m o re than bro ad langu age disc ussing p ro t ec tiv e searc hes

u nd er T e rry , the State a rgu es that Of f ic er Fu ller w as entitled to immed iately d emand

that A p pellant dro p the bat as a m atter of o f f ic er saf e ty d u ring this f

irst- t ier enc o u nter.

H o w ev e r, the Terry co u rt e xp lained that an of f ic er is au tho riz ed to engage to p at d o w n

a c itiz en f o r s af ety “ to di s co v er gu ns, k niv es, clu bs, o r o ther hi dden i n s tru men t s f o r the

assau lt o f the po lic e o f

f ic e r. ” (Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) Terry , 39 2 U. S. 1 , 29 ( I V ). The

3 The State asserts t hat E wu mi is inap p o site bec au se, ac c o r d i n g to the State,

“ [ t]he case is based o n the d enial o f a p retrial mo tio n to su p press that the trial c o urt d enied

. N o su c h mo tio n w as bro u ght in this c ase. ” T he State’ s assessment o f E wu mi is inc o rrec t ; instead , t he ap p eal f o llo w s t he d ef

end ant’ s c o nv ic tio ns fo r, amo ng o ther things, f elo ny o b s tru c tio n o f an o f f ic er. Ewu mi , 31 5 Ga. A p p

. at 656

. Fu r ther, bo th

c ases requ ire the same ap p lic a tio n o f the Terry f

r amew o r k

.

12baseball bat here w as certainly no t hid d en. N e v ertheless, ev en if w e w ere to a c c ep t the

State’ s imp lic it extensio n o f Terry

- - that is, that Of f ic er Fu ller w as entitled to d emand

A p p ellant d ro p the baseball bat f o r o f f i ce r s a fe t y d u ring a su pp o sed f

irst- tier enc o u nter

- - the State’ s argu ment is s till unav a iling u nd er these c irc u m stanc e s. I t is p atent that

A p p ellant d id no t w ish to engage w ith po lic e o n the night in qu estio n, and the State

has of fered no legal a u tho rity su ggesting that a p o lic e o f f ic er m ay searc h f

o r o r sec u re

w eap o ns as part o f w hat c o u l d o nly be d esc ribed a s a “ no n- c o nsensu al” f irst- tier

enc o unter; ind e ed , su c h a legal p o sitio n tu r ns a f irst- tier enc o unter o n its head

. 4

4 Fu rther, w hatev er o f

f ic e r saf ety measu res a re p ermitted u nd er Terry d u ring a f irst- tier enc ou nter, tho se measu res are au tho r iz ed o nly w here “ a reaso nably p ru d ent

man in the c irc u m s tanc e s w o u ld be w arranted in t he belief t hat his saf ety o r that o f

o thers w a s in danger. ” Terry , 39 2 U. S. at 27 (I I I ). The State f ails to ad d ress this requ irement, and w e can f ind no ev id enc e that w o u ld w arrant a belief that anyo ne w as in d anger. The u nd isp u ted ev id enc e sho w s that, bef o r e park ing his p atro l v ehic le, the

o f f ic er o bserv ed no thing mo re t han an ind iv id u al w alk ing d o w n a sid ew alk w ith tw o
o ther ind iv i d u a l s w hile c arrying a w o o d en baseball bat in a relaxed and no nthreatening w ay. W hile it is u nqu estio ned t h a t O ffi ce r Fu ller immed iately u nho lstered his d u ty w eap o n and u ltimately p o inted it at A p p ellant, it is no t t he o f f ic e r’ s su bj ec tiv e belief s that w e u se to ev alu ate d anger; again, it is the “ reaso nably p ru d ent” ind iv id u al stand ard

. H ere, tho u gh A p p ellant may hav e u sed pro f a nity, he d id no thing mo re than

c o ntinu e to w alk o n the sid ew alk p arallel to the o f f ic ers’ v ehic les w hile c arrying the baseball b at by his sid e u ntil he w as f o rc e d t o c o mp ly w ith the o f f ic er’ s demand at gu np o int.

13To the extent that these f ac ts establish a f

irst- tier enc o unter, w e c o nc lu d e that

Of f ic er Fu ller w as no t entitled to c o mmand A p p ellant to d ro p his baseball bat and that

A p p ellant’ s temp orar y c o n ti n ued marc h d o wn t he sid ew alk d id no t amo u nt to the

o bstru c tio n o f

a p o lic e o ff

ic er.
(b) W e no w lo o k to w hether Of f ic er Fu ller’ s ac tio ns were w arranted as p art o f

a sec o nd

- tier enc o u nter, b e tter k no w n as a “ Terry” sto p

. A t trial, Of fic er Fu ller

himself c harac teriz ed his in t e rac tio n w ith Ap p ellant as sec o nd

- tier enc o u nter,

exp laining that it w as an “ [a]rtic u lable reaso nable su s p ic io n” sto p

. H o w ev er, as

exp lained a bo v e , t h i s k ind o f inv estigativ e sto p w o u ld hav e been w arranted o nly if

Of f ic er Fu ller had d e v elo p ed a reaso nable, artic u lable su sp ic io n that Ap p ellant w as

c o mmitting o r w as abo u t to c o mmit a c rime. Here, Of f ic er Fu ller merely testif

ied that

it was u nu su al to s ee so meo ne w alk ing i n t h e area w ith a baseball bat at that time o f

d ay, that he d id no t k no w if A p p ella n t h a d “ b r o k en into ” the H o u se o f China, and

that he had a “ hu nc h” abo u t A p p ellant. 5 These c irc u mstanc e s are i n s u f f i c ient to

c reate r easo nable su sp ic io n. See, e. g. , Ru n n ells v

. S ta te , 357 Ga. A p p. 57 2, 57 6 (1 ) (851

5 The State p o ints to no ev id enc e, and w e hav e f o u nd no ne, su ggesting that this

w as a high- c rime area o r that Ap p ellant was in the v ic inity o f a lo c atio n k no w n f o r
c riminal ac tiv ity.

14SE2d 1 9 6 ) (2020) (rec o gniz ing the w ell- established p rinc ip le that “[a] r easo nable

su sp ic io n is mo re than a su bj ec tiv e, u np artic u lariz e d su sp ic io n or h u n c h ” ( c itatio n

o mitted ) ). I nd eed , neither Of f ic er Fu ller no r the State has a rtic u lated any o f f ense that

A p p ellant w as s u sp ec ted o f c ommitting o r had c o mmitted at the time Of fic er Fu ller

arriv ed o n the sc ene, and the mere f ac t that A p p ellant w as c u rsing and agitated d o es

no t a mo u nt to reaso nable su sp ic io n. See S ta te v

. To llefs o n , 259 Ga. A p p

. 320, 322- 323
(1 ) (b) (57 7 SE2d 21 ) (2003) (in the absenc e o f o f f ic ers id entif

ying a c riminal o f

f ense

that the d ef

end ant had c ommitted o r w as abo u t to c o mmit, d ef end ant’ s c u rsing and
agitatio n d id no t c reate reaso nable su sp ic io n).
Finally, the State asserts that “o nc e [A pp e l lant] began to c u rse at the o f f ic er

and c o n t i n u e t o w alk to ward s him w hile ref u sing to d ro p the bat and cu ssing lo u d ly

at [Of fic er] Fu ller, [A p p ellant] c o mmitted the c rimes o f d iso rd e rly co nd u c t and

o bstru c tio n o f an o f

f ic er and w as s u bj ec t to arrest a t t h a t m o ment. ” (Pu nc tu atio n

o mitted .) H o w ev er, as e stablished abo v e, Of fic er Fu ller’ s e nc o u nter remained a first15tier enc o u nter, 6 and this typ e o f d ef ensiv e behav io r “ w o u l d be c o nsistent w ith
[A p pellant’ s] right to dec line any c o ntac t f ro m the p o lic e a t that po int in t h e

enc o unter. ” S ta te v

. Co

pela nd , 31 0 Ga. at 354 (2) (c ) (ii) (d ef end ant entitled to tak e a

“ def e nsiv e stanc e” in r esp o nse to a f irst- tier enc o u nter, and su c h c o nd u c t w o u ld no t

“ pro v id e a law enf

o rc ement o f

f ic er w ith a reaso nable artic u lable su sp ic io n nec essary

to esc a late the enc o u nter to a T erry sto p” ).

Fo r these reaso ns, the State’ s ev id enc e w as insu f f ic ient to w arrant a co nv ic tio n

f o r misd emeano r o bstru c tio n o f a p o lic e o f f ic er, and the tri a l c o u rt erred w hen it

d enied A p p ellant’ s mo tio n f o r a d irec ted v e rd ic t. A c co rd ingly, A pp ellant’ s j u d gment

o f c o nv ic tio n is rev ersed

.

Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Ba rn es , P. J. , a n d Go b e i

l, J. , co n c u r

.

6 B ec au s e the sto p remained a f irst- tier enc o u nter, th e S t ate’ s relianc e o n R i c ha r d s on v

. S ta te , 239 Ga. A p p

. 345 (521 SE2d 239 ) (1 99 9 ), is misp lac ed

. I n th at

c ase, law enf

o r c e ment had reaso nable su sp ic io n to d etain the d ef end ant and , f

u rther, the arresting o f

f ic e r artic u lated a reaso nable b asis to d e tain the d ef end ant to c o nd u ct

a searc h f o r w eap o ns. See I d

. at 346

.

16