Opinion ID: 1379434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dimensions of a terry stop

Text: [1, 2] In the companion case, State v. Little, 116 Wn.2d 488, 495-96, 806 P.2d 749 (1991), we set forth the dimensions of a permissible investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 7. We noted that those constitutional provisions apply to all seizures of persons, including those encompassing only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Little, 116 Wn.2d at 495. The Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 7 require that the seizure be reasonable. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-19, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968). A police officer can conduct an investigative or Terry stop based on less than probable cause to arrest. Terry, 392 U.S. at 25-26. When police officers have a well-founded suspicion not amounting to probable cause to arrest, they may nonetheless stop a suspected person, identify themselves, and ask that person for identification and an explanation of his or her activities. State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 105, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982) (quoting State v. Gluck, 83 Wn.2d 424, 426, 518 P.2d 703 (1974)); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 99 S.Ct. 2637 (1979). [3, 4] A Terry stop is justified if the officer can point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; White, 97 Wn.2d at 105. When reviewing the merits of an investigatory stop, a court must evaluate the totality of circumstances presented to the investigating officer. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 66 L.Ed.2d 621, 101 S.Ct. 690 (1981); see Little, 116 Wn.2d at 495. The court takes into account an officer's training and experience when determining the reasonableness of a Terry stop. State v. Mercer, 45 Wn. App. 769, 774, 727 P.2d 676 (1986); State v. Samsel, 39 Wn. App. 564, 570-71, 694 P.2d 670 (1985).