Opinion ID: 515792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether There was Founded Suspicion to Justify the Stop

Text: 16 Because it is undisputed in this case that a seizure (or investigatory stop) that required Fourth Amendment protection occurred, the first issue we must address is whether there was a founded suspicion of criminal conduct to justify the stop. The level of cause necessary to provide a sufficient basis for a brief investigatory stop was first outlined in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and further defined in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). An investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417, 101 S.Ct. at 695. 3 In evaluating the lawfulness of the stop, the totality of the circumstances--the whole picture--must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. Id. at 417-18, 101 S.Ct. at 694-95. Founded suspicion must exist at the time the officer initiates the stop. United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir.1985). The totality of circumstances analysis applies to the stop of a moving vehicle. Id. 17 A fresh review of Officer Siegel's declaration and testimony demonstrates that the stop was justified. 4 By weighing the permissible factors articulated by Officer Siegel for making the stop--the suspects' age, sex, and race, 5 the number of suspects, the glasses worn by one of the suspects, the location of the stop, the closeness in time of the police broadcast and the stop, and the suspects' car exiting the parking lot via the lot's entrance--and the inferences that can be drawn from these factors, we find that there is enough to support a founded suspicion to justify the initial stop. 6 18