Opinion ID: 3012979
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Investigative Stop

Text: Under Terry, a police officer “may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” Id. at 22. Therefore, “an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000), quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Officer Silva witnessed sufficient conduct giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. After hearing the flash bulletin information about the armed robbery, Officer Silva decided to drive toward the crime location while surveying for the individual. Less than 10 minutes after the crime, and a few blocks away from the bar, Silva’s attention was diverted when he saw a car traveling in the opposite direction in a suspiciously slow manner. Officer Silva testified that as he passed the car that he was observing, he saw a black male, wearing a white T-shirt who appeared to have an afro-like hairdo and, based on his height while seated in the car, appeared to be tall in stature. Given the proximity in space and time to the scene of the crime, the similarity to the description broadcast and the suspicious way in which the vehicle was traveling, we conclude that Officer Silva had a particular and objective basis for believing that criminal activity was afoot. Gardner argues that Officer Silva could not have seen his white T-shirt, since he was wearing a blue flannel shirt over it. The driver of the vehicle, Jackson, testified that the defendant wore a flannel blue shirt over his white T-shirt the night they were stopped. However, the District Court did not find Jackson’s testimony credible. And, while Agent Wilson testified that Gardner 4 was wearing the blue flannel shirt when he was removed from the vehicle, the court found that the defendant could have put on the blue flannel shirt while Officer Silva waited for backup. The District Court concluded that no evidence was offered to call into question Officer Silva’s testimony. The District Court’s finding was not clearly erroneous, hence we will not disturb it. Gardner also argues that Officer Silva’s conclusion that the robber could have gotten into a vehicle is only conjecture, and that any attempt to justify the Terry stop would elevate speculation and conjecture to the level of articulable facts. We disagree. The Supreme Court has