Court Opinion

ID: 9496333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:23:35.268301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:30.195424
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Contrary to the majority, I believe that under the totality of circumstances test the officers’ decision to stop Patterson was supported by a reasonable suspicion that Patterson was engaged, or about to be engaged in, drug sales. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The Supreme Court has recently clarified the proper application of the totality of circumstances test. In United States v. Arvizu, the Court made clear that courts are not to view in isolation the factors upon which police officers base their reasonable suspicion. See 534 U.S. 266, 274, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (stating that “[t]he court’s evaluation and rejection of seven of the listed factors in isolation from each other does not take into account the ‘totality of circumstances,’ as our cases have understood that phrase.”). Rather, courts must consider all of an officer’s observations, giving due credit to any inferences drawn by an officer based experience or training. Id. at 275-77, 122 S.Ct. 744.
The majority dismisses the import of the citizen complaint that brought the officers to the intersection of Foster and Willett on the grounds that the information conveyed by the tip was not specific enough to allow the officers to predict future criminal activities at the named location or by the described persons. The majority dismisses out right the notion that Patterson’s conduct in concealing his hands and walking away from the officers’ approach could be considered evasive conduct that could reasonably raise an officer’s suspicion. And finally, the majority dismisses the relevance of the officers observing a man in the group throwing something into the bushes before concealing his hands in his pockets.
While I agree that the tip alone would not support stopping Patterson, the officers were not acting only on the tip. Officer Boyce testified that the complaint was about “people hanging out in that corner of the area selling drugs.” The complaint provided a framework for observing the street scene and its participants and applying the officers’ professional expertise in regards to this neighborhood and the *373street level sale of drugs. Officer Fair, a ten-year veteran of the police department and a two-year veteran of the vice-narcotics unit, testified that the Foster and Wil-lett area is a “hot spot” for criminal activity and that he had investigated numerous drug complaints in the immediate vicinity. Officer Boyce, also a veteran of the vice-narcotics unit, testified that his suspicion was raised when the men congregated in front of 1564 Willett attempted to evade contact with the officers once the men recognized that police officers were approaching them. Officer Boyce also testified that one of the men made a throwing motion towards some bushes, conduct Officer Boyce believed was consistent with disposing of drugs. This testimony makes clear that the officers reasonably suspected that the men, Patterson included, were engaged in street drug sales because the men were loitering after dark in a location that was both generally known for street level drug sales and the subject of a recent drug sales complaint, the men attempted to evade police detection of their activity by concealing their hands and walking away, and one man in the group surreptitiously disposed of something in the bushes prior to concealing his hands. This court must give due credit to the inferences drawn by Officers Fair and Boyce based on their specialized training as officers in narcotics division and Officer Fair’s experience with drug sales in this neighborhood. Due credit is not given when factors such as the citizen complaint and evasive conduct are dismissed outright.
As the Arvizu Court pointed out, “[a] determination that reasonable suspicion exists ... need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” Id. at 277, 122 S.Ct. 744. Though Patterson’s conduct may have been innocent, his conduct when considered in light of the totality of circumstances provided a basis for the officers to reasonably suspect that he was engaged or about to be engaged in illegal drug sales. I would, therefore, affirm the district court’s decision to deny Patterson’s motion to suppress.