Opinion ID: 2313621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review standard for when a stop takes place and the determination of reasonable suspicion

Text: Determining whether an officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct the stop requires a threshold finding of when the stop actually took place. [5] Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a seizure requires either physical force or submission to assertion of authority. [6] Once the point at which the stop or seizure occurred has been determined (the Terry stop), we examine whether at that point the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was taking place. [7] Like probable cause, reasonable suspicion is an elusive concept [8] , but requires some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. [9] In determining whether a Terry stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, the courts consider the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the stop. [10] To meet this standard and establish the reasonable and articulable suspicion necessary to survive a motion to suppress, the State must show specific facts which, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the stop. [11] Consistent with federal law, we have adopted a two-pronged analysis when assessing the officer's articulation of the facts and his conduct. [12] First, the court must assess the objective observations and consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers. [13] Second, the court must consider the inferences and deductions that a trained officer could make which might well elude an untrained person. [14] The analysis of these factors is not done in isolation. [15] Nevertheless, it is possible for factors, although insufficient individually, to add up to reasonable suspicionthat is the nature of a totality of the circumstances test. But we think it impossible for a combination of wholly innocent factors to combine into a suspicious conglomeration unless there are concrete reasons for such an interpretation. [16] This Court has consistently explained that a determination of reasonable suspicion must be evaluated in the context of the totality of the circumstances to assess whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis to suspect criminal activity. [17] The totality of the circumstances must be viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, trained police officer in the same or similar circumstances, combining objective facts with the officer's subjective interpretation of those facts. [18] A finding of reasonable suspicion is both somewhat abstract and fact specific and depends on the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. [19] While the police may properly employ hunches to investigate, more is required to detain a citizen in a public place. [20] Put another way, standing alone, an officer's subjective impressions or hunches are insufficient for a stop. [21] Similarly, activity such as leaving the scene upon the approach, or the sighting, of a police officer [22] or the refusal to cooperate with an officer who initiates an encounter [23] cannot be the sole grounds constituting reasonable suspicion. [24] These events, however, may be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances. [25] Other circumstances may also be considered, such as the presence of a defendant in a high crime area, [26] the defendant's unprovoked, headlong flight, [27] a defendant holding a bulge in his pocket that appeared to be either a gun or a large quantity of drugs [28] , a focused warning shout of police presence, [29] or a furtive gesture after the officer's approach or display of authority. [30] The officer's subjective interpretations and explanations of why these activities, based on experience and training, may have given him a reasonable suspicion to investigate further are also important, as is the trial judge's evaluation of the officer's credibility. [31] With these principles in mind, we evaluate whether there was a reasonable and articulable suspicion to seize Lopez-Vazquez.