Opinion ID: 795446
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the seizure based on reasonable suspicion?

Text: 40 Reasonable suspicion need not arise from an officer's direct observation, but can be based on informant tips and dispatcher information. United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir.1998) (A law enforcement officer is generally justified in stopping an individual and asking for identification when relying on information transmitted by a valid police bulletin.). In the present case, Andrews, Bush, and Phann relied on the BOLOs mentioning a possible robbery involving a green station wagon, and on the dispatchers' information that the station wagon had been speeding with money flying out of it. 41 A seizure conducted in reliance on a flyer or dispatch does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the law enforcement officer who issued the information possessed the necessary reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 231-32, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (holding that the constitutionality of a seizure does not turn on whether those relying on the flyer were themselves aware of the specific facts which led their colleagues to seek their assistance). In Hensley, the police interviewed an informant who told them that Hensley had driven the getaway car during an armed robbery. Id. at 223, 105 S.Ct. 675. A wanted flyer was then issued that led to the seizure of Hensley. Id. The Supreme Court held that because an experienced officer could well assume that a warrant might have been obtained[,] . . . the flyer would . . . justify a brief detention at the scene of the stop. Id. at 234, 105 S.Ct. 675. Elaborating on this point, the Court said that 42 if a flyer or bulletin has been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the wanted person had committed an offense, then reliance on the flyer or bulletin justified a stop to check identification . . . . If the flyer has been issued in the absence of reasonable suspicion, then a stop in the objective reliance upon it violates the Fourth Amendment. 43 Id. at 232, 105 S.Ct. 675. 44 In the present case, the totality of the circumstances convince us that the dispatchers on whom Bush relied had a reasonable suspicion that some mishap had occurred. Ms. Louwien reported a green station wagon traveling at a very high rate of speed on the Interstate and money flying out of the vehicle, and law enforcement met Louwien at the scene and observed a significant quantity of currency in the median. The dispatchers relaying this information to the THP troopers in the field did not, however, have sufficient reason to believe that a robbery had occurred, which would have permitted the officers to conduct a much more intrusive felony stop. There were no robberies reported and, as the district court found, McHood introduced the idea of a possible robbery for which he did not have any factual basis. Brock then introduced the idea that the robbers had possibly been armed, which again had no basis in fact. In addition, only $445 dollars was found at the scene, along with a wallet. The dispatchers issuing the BOLOs should have promptly given the THP troopers in the field a count of the money once it was available. Andrews and Phann admitted that, had they known all of the information then available to the dispatchers, they would not have conducted a felony stop of the Smoaks' car. 45 Besides examining the information known to the dispatchers, we must consider the facts known to the THP troopers who actually participated in the seizure—Andrews, Bush, and Phann. This is because reasonable suspicion is measured by all of the information available to law enforcement officials at the time. Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 849 (6th Cir.2003) (holding that an anonymous tip did not give the police reasonable suspicion to stop a bearded, shirtless white male suspected of threatening his neighbors). Bush, for example, knew that the individuals inside the green station wagon had not engaged in any suspicious behavior, including speeding, for the eight miles that he followed them. 46 Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the THP troopers had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to conduct a Terry stop. But because this suspicion was undercut by the fact that only $445 dollars had been found at the scene along with a wallet, and that no robberies had been reported, we must carefully scrutinize the manner in which the seizure was conducted in deciding whether the intrusiveness of the seizure comported with the degree of reasonable suspicion. See Hardnett, 804 F.2d at 356-57 (balancing the intrusiveness of a seizure against the degree of the officer's reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances). 47