Opinion ID: 2654019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stops Pursuant to Terry v. Ohio

Text: On remand from the Supreme Court, Bailey maintains that all evidence obtained from him before his formal arrest on July 28, 2005, was the fruit of an 5 The quoted language plainly defeats Bailey’s argument on remand that the Supreme Court “effectively concluded in its decision in this case” that Bailey’s observed departure from the premises to be searched, “standing alone, did not give rise to reasonable suspicion” as required by Terry. Appellant’s Supp. Br. 13. The Supreme Court made no Terry ruling, expressly deferring that issue to this court on remand. Thus, when the Supreme Court observed at the start of its Bailey III opinion that “[t]he issue to be resolved is whether the seizure of the person was reasonable when he was stopped and detained at some distance away from the premises to be searched when the only justification for the detention was to ensure the safety and efficacy of the search,” 133 S. Ct. at 1035, we understand it to have been framing the Summers inquiry that was the focus of its decision, not to be expressing a view that “this case should not be resolved on Terry grounds,” as