Opinion ID: 2593051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: How immediate was the alleged crime to the investigative stop?

Text: We have previously stated that the justification required for an investigative stop of a vehicle leaving the vicinity of a suspected crime may be lower than the justification required for a police officer to stop and question a person on foot because in such a situation, if action is not immediately taken, there is not likely to be another chance. [34] In this case, after receiving the report from the police dispatcher of a verbal domestic dispute in the parking lot of Henry's Bar, Officer Mickelson, who was in the immediate area, headed towards the parking lot and observed the persons entering an automobile. As Officer Mickelson arrived in the parking lot, the vehicle was moving, driving ... across the parking lot. Officer Mickelson passed the Subaru and, from a distance of eight or ten feet, tried to see if anyone in the vehicle was injured or in need of assistance, but couldn't really see into the car. Officer Mickelson made the investigative stop when the Subaru had reached the exit from the parking lot. Officer Mickelson stopped the vehicle, therefore, only seconds after receiving the call, only after eliminating any non-intrusive means of ascertaining the situation, and only when it appeared that there would be no other opportunities before the vehicle left the vicinity to determine whether the reported crime had occurred, was still occurring, or was about to occur. In short, the alleged crime was quite immediate to the investigative stop.