Opinion ID: 1925383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Riley's Stop Improper

Text: In this case, the events occurred at approximately 8:00 p.m. Other vehicles were in the shopping center parking area, although it wasn't busy. Other stores in the area were open to the public for business. Riley was not seen carrying anything as he entered the females' vehicle. The officers did not observe any actual transactions between the occupants of the vehicle. No money was seen changing hands. No items were seen being exchanged. Riley never exited the females' vehicle and never proceeded toward the liquor store. We have already explained why Riley's mere presence in a shopping center being monitored for underage liquor sales does not mean the police could assume such a transaction was occurring. There was no articulable suspicion of criminal activity merely because the females were turning and speaking with Riley. Similarly, there was no articulable suspicion of criminal activity merely because the occupants of the vehicle were looking around the parking lot. The observations of the officers were all consistent with innocent behavior. The record reflects that, not only did police officers not observe a transaction, but also that upon approaching the vehicle, the officers acknowledged that no crime involving the illegal purchase of alcohol could even have occurred. Officer Young testified that if the door to the car had been opened and nothing was seen, the occupants would be advised that we're conducting an investigation, we observed what we thought was suspicious activity, given them a polite apology, and they're done. Officer Anunias, the senior of the two officers, testified: [I]f I didn't see anything when I walked up that was suspicious, had Mr. Riley put up his head and we had had a conversation and he said, we're waiting for another friend to come to us, we would have sent them on their way. That would have been the end of the stop. Officer Anunias, admitted that at that time he approached and stopped Riley, there was no crime there. The police officers testified that the facts they possessed at the time of the stop did not provide a proper legal basis for detaining Riley. Thus, the record reflects that the police stopped Riley to question him without first formulating the reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity that permits such a stop. Consequently, the Superior Court erroneously denied Riley's motion to suppress the physical evidence that was seized as a result of the illegal stop.