Opinion ID: 2999846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion to Initiate Terry Stop

Text: Cady argues that the officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop. An officer is warranted in effectuating a Terry stop when he can “point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant an intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. Cady points to Brown v. Texas, but his reliance is misplaced; in Brown the individuals were stopped because they were in a high crime area, and the officers had no specified reason to believe they were engaging in criminal activity or were armed. 443 U.S. 47, 48-49, 52 (1979). Such is not the case here, where the officers had numerous specific facts creating reasonable suspicion. Cady also relies on several cases pointing out that a dirty, disheveled appearance alone does not amount to reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Sholola, 124 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2001). But the officers in this case did not rely on Cady’s appearance alone; they also relied on his location, the time of day, and the manner of his movements amongst the bushes outside the courthouse. As we noted in Braun v. No. 04-3518 9 Baldwin, courthouses present heightened security concerns, particularly those where criminal defendants are tried and ongoing domestic disputes are resolved. 346 F.3d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 2003). These are factors an officer may properly consider when determining whether a Terry stop is warranted. Cady points out that an officer “is not entitled to seize and search every person whom he sees on the street or of whom he makes inquiries.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64 (1968). This is correct; but, an officer is entitled to conduct a limited stop and related protective search for weapons of an individual who is lurking amongst the bushes outside a courthouse two hours before it opens, is shabbily dressed, carrying a briefcase, claims to be a federal process server, refuses to provide identification upon request, and is evasive in response to police questioning.