Court Opinion

ID: 9513464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:36:01.486429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:52.227505
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 14] I concur with that part of the majority opinion holding the trial judge erred in applying the stricter probable cause standard, rather than the more minimal reasonable suspicion standard. I disagree, however, with the majority opinion’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, the events witnessed by Patrolman Saltsman do not give rise to a reasonable and articu-lable suspicion, justifying an investigatory stop. The majority correctly states that,
officers are to assess the situation as it unfolds and, based upon inferences and deductions drawn from their experience and training, make the determination whether all of the circumstances viewed together create a reasonable suspicion of potential criminal activity.
Ova, 539 N.W.2d at 859. I conclude, based on that standard and given the totality of the circumstances of this case, Patrolman Saltsman had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Johnson’s vehicle. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 15] Though one’s mere presence in a high crime area does not justify a stop, the *489reputation of an area for criminal activity is an articulable fact upon which a police officer may rely. Rickus, 737 F.2d at 365. The majority acknowledges that principle, but concludes this case is similar to Ro-bertsdahl, in which a police officer made an investigatory stop because he was unfamiliar with the defendant’s vehicle and was suspicious because he knew there had been burglaries in that county and in surrounding counties. 512 N.W.2d at 427. I believe the facts presented in this case are unlike those in Robertsdahl. Here, the defendant’s car drove around a business which was closed for the evening and into a dimly lighted area directly behind the building. The patrolman knew this establishment had been burglarized recently and that the defendant’s car did not belong to its owners. The patrolman knew that several other nearby businesses had also been burglarized in the past. The patrolman further knew these businesses had only minimal security systems. In fact, at the time the patrolman observed the defendant drive behind the building, he was doing routine building checks in order to prevent and detect burglaries to these businesses. Thus, the area in which these events occurred was not merely a “high crime area” in general. Rather, the defendant, after business hours, drove around and into a dimly lit area directly behind a victimized establishment, which the officer knew to have an inadequate security system. While the occurrence of burglaries at unspecified locations throughout a county did not justify the stop in Robertsdahl, I believe the officer’s knowledge, in this case, of the history of and susceptibility to burglaries of a particular establishment, coupled with other facts, gives rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion.
[¶ 16] Among the “other facts” which, along with an officer’s knowledge of an area’s reputation for crime, may give rise to a reasonable suspicion is the time of night at which the events take place. The California Supreme Court recognized in People v. Souza, that “[t]he time of night is another pertinent factor in assessing the validity of a detention.” 9 Cal.4th 224, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 569, 885 P.2d 982, 992 (1994). Other state supreme courts have reached similar conclusions. In Maine v. Dean, the Maine Supreme Court held an officer had the requisite reasonable and articula-ble suspicion to stop a driver, whose driving was “unremarkable,” leaving an unoccupied building site at 11:00 p.m. 645 A.2d 634, 635-36 (Me.1994). The Maine court noted the two facts yielding a reasonable suspicion were: “(1) Dean’s presence in an area of recent crime reports; and (2) the apparent absence of any reason to be in an uninhabited area at night.” Id. at 636. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on two other state supreme court cases with similar fact patterns. In People v. Ellis, the Illinois Supreme Court held an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop two men walking across a shopping center parking lot, in an area of recent burglaries, at 1:25 a.m. 113 Ill.App.3d 314, 68 Ill.Dec. 885, 446 N.E.2d 1282, 1284-85 (1983). A decade earlier, in a case very similar to the one before us, the Missouri Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Stark, that an officer was justified in stopping a vehicle which, at 1:00 a.m., entered and quickly left an apartment complex known to have been the scene of numerous crimes. 502 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Mo.1973).
[¶ 17] Our Court has also recognized the time of night during which events occur may be a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of an officer’s actions when making an investigatory stop. In Ovind, a police officer responded to a report of a fight in a fast food restaurant parking lot a little before 1:45 a.m. 1998 ND 69, ¶ 2, 575 N.W.2d 901. Under the circumstances presented in that case, we held it was reasonable for an officer to “freeze” a situation where he suspected a crime may have been committed and conduct a limited investigatory stop. Id. at ¶ 17. We stated, however, that the officer’s suspicions might have been less reasonable had the events occurred at a different time of day. Id.
*490[¶ 18] The events giving rise to this appeal occurred at approximately 4:13 a.m. in a business and residential area of Minot, North Dakota. Activities that are unremarkable during daylight hours are more likely to arouse suspicion when conducted under cover of darkness. The time of night at which Patrolman Saltsman saw the defendant drive into a dimly lit area behind a closed business and exit the parking lot is another articulable fact, and part of the totality of the circumstances, upon which reasonable suspicion may be based.
[¶ 19] Our duty is to view the events leading to the stop through Patrolman Saltsman’s eyes, granting him the reasonable inferences drawn from training and experience. Given that standard and the totality of the circumstances presented by this case, I conclude reasonable and articu-lable suspicion existed to justify the investigatory stop. I would reverse the trial court’s order suppressing evidence from the stop and remand for further proceedings.
[¶ 20] Mary Muehlen Maring