Court Opinion

ID: 9542646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:36:57.600762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:31.949049
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The defendant’s allegation that he was unconstitutionally detained merits consideration from some perspective other than hindsight. A police officer’s conduct in making an investigatory stop should be judged solely upon the information in his possession immediately prior to the investigation.
Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495 (1971), dictates that an investigatory stop must be preceded by a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officer that the suspect is either engaged in or about to engage in criminal activity. Mere suspicion or conjecture will not suffice. The only information possessed by Officer Lopez when he detained the suspects in the vehicle was second-hand information gleaned from a radio dispatch relating a citizen’s unverified and uncorroborated suspicions. The foundation of those suspicions — if there was one — was not so reasonable as to warrant an immediate investigatory stop by the police officers. Nevertheless, armed with the sketchy information supplied by the radio dispatch, Officer Lopez promptly marched to the vehicle, initiated an investigation, and eventually arrested the occupants.
*539The mere fact that an informant is a citizen who identifies herself over the telephone does not assure an investigating officer of her reliability and supply justification for a subsequent stop. In some situations, the untested word of a citizen-informant may warrant immediate police response. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), provides:
“[Wjhen the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant, or when a credible informant warns of a specific impending crime — the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response.”
Here, the information received by Officer Lopez was not derived from the victim of a street crime. At most, the information supplied to the police was based upon speculation and suspicion. The police were advised that suspicious people, possibly involved in a drug transaction, were parked in a car near the citizen-informant’s home.
The informant’s tip in this ease required further investigation on the part of the officer before a forcible stop of the suspect could be authorized. Adams v. Williams, supra. A few minutes’ independent observation by Officer Lopez may very well have substantiated and particularized the suspicions asserted by the citizen-informant.
Inasmuch as the arrest was predicated upon information obtained during an unreasonable investigatory stop, the arrest, in my opinion, was not justified.
I would reverse.