Opinion ID: 3174929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion to Seize Appellant

Text: Officers may seize an individual to conduct an investigatory stop if, in the totality of the circumstances, they have particularized and objectively reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. See generally Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The officer must be able to provide “specific and articulable facts” to justify the Fourth Amendment intrusion. See Curtis v. United States, 349 A.2d 469, 471 (D.C. 1975) (citation omitted). The government’s burden, however, “is not an onerous one” because “articulable suspicion is substantially less than probable cause . . . .” In re T.L.L., 729 A.2d 334, 339 (D.C. 1994) (citations omitted). “[A]n imperfect description, coupled with close spatial and temporal proximity between the reported crime and seizure, justifies a Terry stop.” United States v. Turner, 699 A.2d 1125, 1129 (D.C. 1997) (summarizing cases of twentyfive seconds to “minutes” between description and stop) (citations omitted). 5 Our review is limited on an appeal concerning the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C. 1991). “[W]e will not disturb the trial judge’s findings of fact unless they lack evidentiary support in the record . . . . The evidence, and all reasonable inferences from the evidence, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the District, as the party that prevailed below.” In re T.L.L., supra, 729 A.2d at 339 (citing Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318, 1320 (D.C. 1991) (en banc); Ruffin v. United States, 642 A.2d 1288, 1291 (D.C. 1994)). We apply the clearly erroneous standard to the judge’s findings of fact, but the ultimate conclusion on whether the police had reasonable articulable suspicion is a question of law we decide de novo. Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1020. Appellant contends that the initial descriptions of the robber given by the complainant were markedly inaccurate and therefore deficient. Nonetheless, appellant fit the general description given as to the age, ethnicity, ski clothing, and glove. Further, appellant was observed by the officers just two blocks from the robbery scene a few minutes later. Applying the familiar Terry measure of total circumstances, we conclude that the evidence supports the trial judge’s finding of reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity afoot to justify a temporary 6 stop. See Turner, supra, 699 A.2d at 1128-29 (discussing that an imperfect description “coupled with close spatial and temporal proximity between the reported crime and seizure, justifies a Terry stop”). Thereafter, the complaining witness’ positive identification of appellant at the show-up gave police probable cause to arrest. See generally Oxner v. United States, 995 A.2d 205, 209 (D.C. 2010).