Opinion ID: 2977049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Justification for the Stop and the Search

Text: First, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Boyett. In assessing reasonable suspicion, we look to the “totality of circumstances . . . to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Jacob, 377 F.3d 573, 577 (6th Cir. 2004). “If police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a -4- No. 07-5880 US v. Boyett Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985). The circumstances can include information “derived from such sources as informant tips, dispatch information, and directions from other officers.” Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389, 395 (6th Cir. 2008). The report itself must have “been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the wanted person has committed an offense.” Hensley, 469 U.S. at 232. Despite the unusual nature of the reported robbery in the park, it led directly to a police report whose characteristics provided a basis for a Terry stop. A report should create reasonable suspicion when “the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant.” See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147 (1972). The victims “came forward personally to give information that was immediately verifiable at the scene,” and a false report is punishable under state law. See id. at 146-47. The officer on the scene found palm prints on the car consistent with their story.2 The report contained a detailed description of the car involved, as well as a description of the assailant, part of his name, and the weapon he used. The reporting officer thus had a particularized basis for a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a Terry stop of someone matching the description given by Jones and Brown. Lieutenant Massey read the resulting report and, on May 31, he saw a silver and maroon Bronco 4x4, which matched the vehicle described in the report, on the highway. He recognized the driver as Larry Boyett, and remembered that the report indicated the suspect’s first name may be 2 Jones and Brown did give different descriptions of the gun used in the robbery. However, Officer Faulkner testified that it was “very common” for victims of violent crimes to give inconsistent descriptions of the weapon used. (J.A. at 59.) -5- No. 07-5880 US v. Boyett Larry. The Bronco also had a Benton County sticker on its license plate, and the report stated that the suspect may be from Benton County. Additionally, Lieutenant Massey knew Boyett had previously been charged with aggravated burglary and had kept a .38 in his car–the same type of weapon listed in the report. These circumstances, paired with the report, generated a particularized and objective basis for reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop. The scope of the search incident to the stop was also justified. An officer making a Terry stop may take “preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within [the subject’s] immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, (1983). This includes a “search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden.” Id. at 1049; see also United States v. Graham, 483 F.3d 431, 439-440 (6th Cir. 2007). The search may include closed compartments in the car. Long, 463 U.S. at 1049 (finding it reasonable to search a glove compartment for a weapon during a Terry stop); see also United States v. Shank, F.3d , 07-3544, 2008 WL 4273129, at  (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2008). Here, the officers searched the car prior to allowing Boyett and his passenger to reenter the car. The search included the central console, which looked as if “it had been tampered with frequently.” The officers found that by “just basically pulling up on the top of [the console] there was a revolver located underneath the cover.” Since Boyett would have had access to this weapon upon returning to his vehicle, the search of the console was permissible under Michigan v. Long.