Document: 443 U.S. 47 99 S.Ct. 2637 61 L.Ed.2d 357 Zackary C. BROWN, Appellant,v.State of TEXAS. No. 77-6673. Argued Feb. 21, 1979. Decided June 25, Syllabus Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one an alley area with high incidence drug traffic. They stopped asked to identify himself explain what he was doing. One officer testified that because the situation "looked suspicious we had never seen subject before." The officers did not claim suspect any specific misconduct, nor they have reason believe armed. When refused himself, arrested for violation Texas statute which makes it criminal act person refuse give his name address "who has lawfully him requested information." Appellant's motion set aside information charging on ground violated First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments denied, convicted fined. Held : application detain require Fourth Amendment lacked reasonable suspicion engaged or conduct. Detaining constituted seizure requirement be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889; United States Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 95 2574, 45 607. requires such based specific, objective facts indicating society's legitimate interests action, carried out pursuant plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations conduct individual officers. Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 1391, 59 660. Here, State does contend practice criteria, officers' actions were justified suspicion, facts, involved activity. Absent basis suspecting balance between public interest crime prevention appellant's right personal security privacy tilts favor freedom interference. Pp. 50-53. Reversed. Raymond Caballero, El Paso, Tex., appellant. Renea Hicks, Austin, appellee, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered opinion 1 This appeal presents question whether validly refusing comply policeman's demand provision Penal Code identification request. 2 * At 12:45 afternoon December 9, 1977, Officers Venegas Sotelo Paso Police Department car. opposite directions alley. Although two men few feet apart when first seen, Officer later both believed been together about meet until car appeared. 3 entered alley, got doing there. other questioned detained. where However, 4 Appellant angrily asserted no stop him. replied "high problem area"; then "frisked" appellant, but found nothing. 5 continued Ann. § 38.02(a) (1974), information."1 Following arrest searched appellant; nothing untoward found. 6 While being taken County Jail identified himself. Nonetheless, held custody charged violating 38.02(a). booked routinely third time. Municipal Court fined $20 plus court costs 38.02. He exercised under law trial de novo There, moved Fifth unconstitutionally vague Amendment. denied. waived jury, imposed fine $45 costs. 7 Under inferior county is further review only if exceeding $100 imposed. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 4.03 (Vernon 1977). Accordingly, Court's rejection constitutional claims decision "by highest could had." 28 U.S.C. 1257(2). On here noted probable jurisdiction. 439 909, 276, 58 255 (1978). We reverse. II 8 detained purpose requiring performed requirements In convicting necessarily as matter fact "lawfully stopped" See Tex.Penal Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02 (1974). Amendment, course, "applies all seizures person, including involve brief detention short traditional arrest. Davis Mississippi, 394 721, 89 1394, 22 676 (1969); 16-19, 1877, 889 (1968). " '[W]henever accosts restrains walk away, "seized" person,' id., at 16, S.Ct., 'reasonable.' 878, 2578, 607 (1975). 9 reasonableness are less intrusive than arrest, see Dunaway New York, 442 200, 209-210, 2248, 2254-2255, 60 824 (1979); 20, 1878, (1968), depends 'on individual's free arbitrary interference officers.' Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 109, 98 330, 332, 54 331 (1977); supra, U.S., 2578. Consideration constitutionality involves weighing gravity concerns served seizure, degree advances interest, severity liberty. See, e. g., 878-883, 2578-2581. 10 A central concern balancing these competing considerations variety settings assure expectation invasions solely unfettered discretion field. 654-655, 1396-1397, 660 882, 2580. To this end, must particular individual, 663, 1401. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 558-562, 96 3074, 3083-3085, 49 1116 (1976). 11 rather maintains stopping "reasonable, articulable just been, being, committed." recognized some circumstances may briefly questioning although "probable cause" activity, required 880-881, 25-26, 1882. 1401; supra 882-883, 2581; also Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 618, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939). 12 flaw State's case none preceding suspicious," unable point supporting conclusion.2 There indication record unusual people neighborhood frequented users, standing alone, concluding short, activity different pedestrians neighborhood. pressed, acknowledged ascertain identity. suggests understandable desire assert presence; however, negate guarantees. 13 absence designed advance weighty social large metropolitan centers: crime. But even assuming demanding without believing guarantees do allow it. risk abusive practices exceeds tolerable limits. 661, 1400. 14 conduct.3 punished conviction 15 APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 16 "THE COURT: . What you think lawfully, doesn't want talk you, put jail committing 17 "MR. PATTON [Prosecutor]: Well all, I would Defendant's statement First gives silence. 18 I'm asking why should don't say anything. 19 PATTON: Well, there's certain viewed. Okay, I'd like tell me those are. 21 Governmental maintain safety society citizens live society, there certainly strong direction that, outweigh amount intrusion upon respect, far simply proper circumstances. answer? 23 Again, can answer given, tends disrupt. 24 disrupt? 25 disrupt goal over its make sure secure their gains homes. 26 How anybody forcing them, penalty prosecuted, giving address, though stopped? 27 I, know, individuals stopped, it's presumed perhaps up something, duty find determine exactly going on. questioning, shouldn't ask questions. everything possibly out. what's putting something. realize lots times will defendant Miranda warning means statement. Lots defendants go ahead confess, that. can't them jail, confess crime?" App. 15-17 (emphasis added). entire section reads follows: "§ Failure Identify Witness "(a) commits offense intentionally refuses report false residence peace who distinguished observations trained, experienced able perceive articulate meaning given wholly innocent untrained observer. 884-885, 2582, (1975); Christensen States,, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 36, 259 F.2d 192, 193 (1958). need decide context lawful investigatory satisfies requirements. 210 n. 12, 2255, 34, 1886, 882 (1968) (WHITE, J., concurring). Judge troubled question, shown colloquy Appendix opinion.

Category: 0