1 

### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 6, 200 5 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JAM ES D . N ICHOL SON App e al b y P e r m iss ion fro mth e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2003-C- 2381 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr ., Judge

No. M2004- 00111-SC-R11- CD - F iled April 17, 2006

J anice M. Holder, dissenting
I write sepa

rate ly to ex p re s s my

disag ree ment with the majority ’s holding that the law enfor ceme nt office rs’ seizure of the def endant, James D. Nicholson (“N icholson”), wa s invalid due to the lack of

rea sonable suspicion.
Aninv e sti g a tory sto p is p e rm iss ibl e un de r the Un ite d St a te s a ndTe nn e sse e Con sti tution s if it is based upon rea sonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable fa cts , t h at a criminal of fe ns e ha s b e e n o r i s a

bo ut t o b e c omm itt e d. Se e Te rry v. Oh io, 39 2 U .S. 1, 20 -2 1 ( 1968 ); State v. Ra nd olp h, 74 S.W. 3d33 0, 33 4 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) . T he le ve l of suspi c ionre qu ir e d f or a va lid i n v e s t i g a t o ry s t o p i s c o n s i d e r ab l y l e s s t h a n e i t h e r p r o b ab l e c au s e o r

p r o o f o f w r o n g d o i n g b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1989); State v. Ye arg an, 958 S.W .2d 626, 632 (Tenn. 1997)

. Reasonable suspicion is determined by consideringthe totality of the circumstance s surrounding the seizure. See Randolph, 74 S.W .3d at 336. Circumstance s relevant in determining the ex istence of rea sonable suspi cion i nclude, but arenot limi ted to, the offic er’ s persona l objective ob se rv a tio ns , inf

ormatio n re c e ive d fr om o the r l a w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs or a g e nc ie s o r f

ro m c iti zen s, and the pattern of ope ration of c ertain offen d er s
. Ye ar gan, 958 S .W.2d at 632. The rational infere nces and deductions that a trained offic er may draw from the fac ts and circ umstances known to that office r also may be considered. St ate v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 867 (Tenn. 1998); Yea rg an, 958 S.W .2d at 632.
I a g re e wi th the ma

jority ’s c on c lus ionthat D e te c tiv e Ry a n L oc kwood ’s in str uc tio n to Nicholson to “hold up” prior to N icholson’s flig ht did not constit ute a se izure. The majority further rec og nizes that the St ate doe s not dispute that Nichol son was seized pursuant to Tennessee2

constitutional standards when the o ff i ce rs pursued him y elling, “ Stop, poli ce.” Acc ording ly , the totalityof the e vents and c ircumstance s leading up to t he off icer s’ pursuit of Nicholson and the direc tive, “Stop, police ,” may be considere d in determining whether rea sonable suspicion existed.
Detec tive L ockwood sa w Nicholson in an a rea in which Dete ctive L ock wo od and other detec tives in the i ntellige nce divisi on wer e conducting a pre viouslyplanned investig ation of g ang a c tiv ity . Se e I lli no is v . Wa rd low , 5 28 U. S. 1 19 , 1 24 (2 00 0) (h old ing that th e are a ’s pr op e ns ity tow ardc ri min a l a c tiv ity

is o ne fa c tor

to b e c on sid e re d inde termi ning thee xiste nc e of re a so na ble suspicion); State v. L awson, 929 S.W.2d 406, 408 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Nicholson was in the are a at a pproxi mately

11:30 p.m. L awson, 929 S.W.2d at 408 (concluding that the latene ss of the hour is one fa ctor in dete rmining the exis tence of re asonable suspicion). Prior to the seizure, Detective L ockwood observed a larg e g roup of pe ople ar ound the Henry Place a rea on property

belong ing to the Me tropolitan Deve lopment and H ousing A g ency (“MDH A”) wher e “N o Trespa ssing” signs were posted. Detec tive L ockwood sa w some member s of the g roup conducting “hand- to-hand transactions.” When Detec tive L ockwood and other office rs appr oache d theg ro up , th e me mbe rs of the g ro up fl e d. De te c tiv e L oc kw oo d be g a n to c ha se on e of thesu sp e c ts. Up on arrivi ng a t th e c orne r o n H e nry Pla c e , D e te c tiv e L oc kw oo d lo st s ig ht o f the su sp e c t.
Detec tive L ockwood stopped, looke d toward the g ener al vicinity wher e the g roup had be en g ather ed, and saw Nicholson walking

. Detec tive L ockwood testified he did not observe Nic holson committing an illeg al ac t but “had cause to believe” that Nicholson was trespassing . The trial c ourt fo un d th a t D e te c tiv e L oc kw oo d h a d a va lidba sis to a

pp ro a c h N ic ho lso n and in qu ir e a s to his prese n ce
. De t ec t i v e Loc k wo o di n s tru ct ed Ni ch o l s o n t o “h o l du p
. ” D et ec t i v e Loc k wo o dt es t ified that his police badg e and insig nia wer e cle arly visible. Nicholson, however , ran f rom the sce ne. The majority

conclude s that Nicholson’s flig ht from t h e scene wa s not a valid basis upon which to find re asonable suspicion. I ag reethat a def

endant’ s flig ht, standing alone, is insufficie nt to establish rea sonable suspi cion. I believe, how ever , that a def endant’ s flight is one f

actor that may be prope rly

considere d in examining t he is sue of r easona ble suspicion. See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124 (holding that “nervous, evasive behavior ,” such as flig ht, is a rele vant fac tor in an examination of re asonable suspicion).
Th e ma jority a lso ide nti fi e s inno c e nt re a so ns jus tif y ing fl ig ht f

ro m la w e nf

or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs
. The re cord doe s not indicate t hat Nicholson had innocent rea sons for f leeing from the of

fice r or that Nicholson “simply

happene d on the sce ne af

ter De te c ti v eL o c kw o o d

h a d u n s u c c essfully

chase d other pe rs on s. ” F urthe rm or e , w e areno t r e qu ir e d to fi nda c on st itu tio na l vi olatio n s imp ly be c aus e innocent re asons for suc h conduct ma y exis t. See id. at 125. The te st in a rea sonable suspicion inquiry is not whether the a ctivity may be consistent with innocent c onduct but whether the fa cts or c ir c ums ta nc e s “ make thec on du c t r e a so na bly su sp ic iou s o f p a st or fu tur e c ri min a l c on du c t.” State v. Scarle tt, 880 S.W .2d 707, 709 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)

.3

Finally , the majority takes eac h fac t and circ umstance and views it in isolation t o examine whether rea sonable suspicion existed. I ag reethat eac h fac t and circumstance , standing alone, doe s not rise to the level of

rea sonable suspicion. In examining the issue of r easona ble suspicion, howeve r, we a

re r equire d to consider the f acts and circ umstances in their totality . See Randolph, 74 S.W .3d at 336. Under

the totality

of t h e fa ct s an d circumstances of the prese nt case , Detec tive L ockwood c ould have r easona bly suspected at t h e l east that Nicholson had been tr espassing on MDHA prope rty

and, ther efor e, wa s justified in conducting an investig atory stop.
B e c aus e I be lie ve that th e se izur e wa s v a lid , I re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

___________________________________ JANI CE M . H OLDE R, JUS TI CE