Court Opinion

ID: 9603972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:12:08.376921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:16.392881
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent as to Part II. The temporary detention and pat-down search conducted in this case was, in my opinion, premised on something less than the constitutional standard of “reasonable suspicion.” See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495 (1971). The police officers’ original suspicion that a crime was being, or was about to be., committed was based upon their observation of three men unloading a large pile of clothing from a vehicle in a shopping center parking lot. The fact that it was a high-crime area is of little or no relevance. Citizens residing in high-crime areas are no less entitled to the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment than are citizens of low-crime areas. Justification for the poice officers’ action is further reinforced by the fact that a nearby clothing store was recently burglarized.
*149The majority opinion specifies neither the recency nor the proximity of the alleged burglary of a nearby clothing store. Proceeding on his shaky suspicions, the officer approached the defendant and asked what he was doing. Before the defendant had time to explain, the police officers began their pat-down search, whereupon they found the weapon. No sufficient explanation is given as to why the police officers believed that their personal safety required such action. Although the police officer remembered seeing the defendant’s name on a flyer issued by the police department and the defendant was described as being “armed and possibly dangerous,” this information alone does not support a reasonable suspicion that the defendant on this particular occasion represented a grave threat to the officers’ safety.
Finally, the ultimate discovery of the weapon is totally without relevance in measuring the reasonableness of an officer’s foresight determination that a suspect is armed.
I fear this opinion licenses intrusive invasions of privacy and extends the limits of lawful investigation beyond the limits of Terry v. Ohio, supra; Adams v. Williams, supra; and Stone v. People, supra.