Opinion ID: 849089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guiding Legal Principles

Text: The stop and frisk doctrine has roots in the United States Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio , which held that a reasonable investigatory stop of criminal defendants is permissible when an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.... Id. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Further, the officer may conduct a patdown search for weapons when the officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others.... Id. at 24, 88 S.Ct. 1868. In the event of a Terry stop, courts should take into account the whole picture, and determine whether the stop was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). Under the totality of the circumstances, a stop will be considered valid only when the detaining officer can reasonably articulate a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the individual stopped had been engaged in or was about to engage in criminal activity. Terry, supra at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. A hunch unsupported by particularized suspicion will not justify the seizure of a person. Id. When the seizure of a defendant does not comport with Terry, it will be deemed unreasonable and the evidence flowing from the seizure may be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun; Shabaz, supra . Pursuant to Wong Sun, the fruits of the officers' illegal action are not to be admitted as evidence unless an intervening independent act of free will purges the primary taint of the unlawful invasion. People v. Shabaz 424 Mich. 42, 66, 378 N.W.2d 451 (1985).