The officer could not reasonably suspect that an individual walking through a neighborhood with an unknown object in his pocket wanted to shoot a police officer. No evidence connected Graves to the men the officers had detained. Graves' conduct indicated only that he was passing through the area. He was free to ignore the officers, who had detained other men, and walk away. That Graves was walking in a neighborhood while the police were detaining suspected drug users was not a basis for concluding that Graves was engaged in criminal conduct.
Reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch.
When the officers detained appellant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. . . . I would hold that at the moment Graves ignored the officer's inquiry and continued on his path, he demonstrated his refusal to engage in a consensual encounter. His subsequent words and conduct reinforced his lack of consent. For these reasons, I would hold that the resulting search was violative of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, I would reverse the conviction and dismiss the indictment.