Opinion ID: 165958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to the second encounter

Text: 12 Mr. Dennison maintains that Officer Contos' second encounter with Mr. Dennison and Mr. Allen was an investigative detention not supported by reasonable suspicion. A lawful investigative detention of limited scope and duration does not require probable cause as long as the police officer has reasonable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30-31, 88 S.Ct. 1868. An officer making a Terry stop must be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch. The Fourth Amendment requires some minimal level of objective justification for making the stop. That level of suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 13 The district court determined that Officer Contos' second encounter with Mr. Dennison and Mr. Allen was a lawful investigative detention under Terry. It noted that Officer Contos believed that something wasn't right after his first encounter with the men, Dist. Ct. Order at 6, and the district court made several factual findings in support of Officer Contos' concern of criminal activity: 14 1. It was 3:00 in the morning, an unusual time for citizens to be waiting for a tow truck. Id. 15 2. Mr. Dennison and Mr. Allen were seated in [Mr. Dennison's] Ford adjacent to an apartment parking lot which was the frequent target for nocturnal car theft. Id. 16 3. The Ford did not have its lights or engine on [during the first encounter], was situated a substantial distance from the Chevy [truck to be towed], and the Chevy was not visible. Id. 17 4. During the first encounter, Mr. Dennison's truck was parked in such a way that it was unlikely that it would have been visible to the tow truck. Id. 18 5. When Officer Santos returned, the Ford had moved and had its lights on and the engine running. Id. 19 The district court erred, according to Mr. Dennison, when it cited the change of certain factors (e.g., his Ford truck being parked closer to the Chevy truck, with its lights on and engine running, during the second encounter) as further heightening Officer Contos' suspicion. He further maintains that the first four factors, neither individually nor in combination, give rise to a finding of reasonable suspicion. 20 Even if each separate fact or observation leading to Officer Contos' second encounter is not by itself proof of any illegal conduct, we consider whether the facts as a whole amount to reasonable suspicion. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581; see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (noting that a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation). 21 We agree with the district court that the officer's hunch that something wasn't right would not be sufficient by itself to support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Here, several specific facts taken together, however, warranted the additional investigation. Mr. Dennison's presence in a high-crime area is not, standing alone, enough to provide reasonable suspicion, but it may be a relevant contextual consideration in a Terry analysis. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). [O]fficers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation. Id. The parties do not dispute that, at 3 a.m., Mr. Dennison and Mr. Allen did not have keys to the Chevy truck to be towed, were situated a substantial distance from the Chevy, and the Chevy was not visible. Dist. Ct. Order at 6. 22 The Supreme Court has stated that, in cases where the conduct justifying the stop was ambiguous and susceptible of an innocent explanation,  Terry recognized that the officers could detain the individuals to resolve the ambiguity. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125, 120 S.Ct. 673. Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's determination, the aggregate facts support Officer Contos' reasonable suspicion that the men's initial explanation was not complete and that criminal activity was afoot. Officer Contos therefore could inquire, with the second encounter, as to the identities of Mr. Dennison and Mr. Allen and validate proof of the Chevy truck's ownership. 23