Identifying the rules that apply to a particular legal issue in your jurisdiction requires legal research. The legal research process involves not only finding legal authorities, but also determining their importance. The trial court rejected Wardlow`s removal request and appealed the resulting conviction for illegal possession of the firearm, arguing that it had been seized improperly. In this case, the police had no information from any source to support the reasonable suspicion that Navedo was involved in firearms trafficking or intended to purchase a firearm in Pozo. As we have just discovered, officers knew nothing to suggest that Navedo was connected to previous criminal activity.6 His residence at 315 Park Avenue was not even the focus of police surveillance. This surveillance targeted the building located at 323 Park Avenue. A shooting had been reported at that address, and the shooting wasn`t even that new. The arrest appears to be based on nothing more than an attempt to transfer reasonable police suspicions about Pozo to Navedo.7 However, as the Supreme Court in Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979), “the mere fitness of a person in relation to other persons suspected independently of criminal activity does not readily give a probable reason for searching that person.” There, the court stated: “Despite the absence of a probable reason to search Ybarra, the state maintains that the action of the police to search and seize what was found in his pocket was nevertheless constitutionally permissible. We are not even in a position to take the first step that this argument requires. Id., p. 92.
Although the Ybarra court discussed the probable reason for an arrest rather than the reasonable suspicion of a review under Terry, the court`s decision also applies to this situation. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 49–52 (1979). Justice Stevens went on to explain that when fleeing the police, the relevant Terry Inquiry must “address the level of suspicion associated with an individual`s escape or, more specifically, what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it.” Id., p. 128 (inner quotation marks omitted). He described several possible reasons for fleeing – some innocent and harmless, and some not. Id., pp.
128–30. Around 8:30 p.m., detectives saw a man (later identified as Navedo) exit the entrance to 315 Park Avenue and stand on the porch, about twenty to thirty feet from their unmarked parked car. Officer Suarez testified that Navedo did nothing unusual. Shortly thereafter, a person later identified as co-accused Pozo approached Navedo from the street. Pozo was carrying a book bag and Navedo came downstairs to talk to him. According to Officer DeLaCruz`s repressive testimony, the conversation seemed warm and friendly, and no one seemed threatened or threatening. J.A. at the age of 84. After a few minutes, Pozo took the bag he was carrying from his shoulder, reached out and pulled out an object. Police then watched Pozo hold what looked like a silver pistol with a black handle. Navedo never touched or possessed the weapon.
In fact, it never left Pozo`s hands, and none of the officers observed any behavior that suggested Navedo was doing anything illegal. [2] According to Detective Suarez`s testimony at the suppression hearing, just before the police approached the group, Navedo “just leaned forward to see what was in the bag.” J.A. at the age of 52. Contrary to the government`s appeal to Laville, the facts show what kind of information police need before fleeing can in itself raise a reasonable suspicion to a probable reason. We explained that while “the arresting officer should not have thought about the specific crime for which the defendant is ultimately charged,” he or she “must have information or circumstances reasonably reliable to the knowledge of the arresting officer to justify a person with reasonable caution concluding that a crime has been or will be committed by the arrested person.” Id., p. 194 (emphasis added). Laville officials had clues from a citizen informant about the exact identity of a person suspected of having entered the country illegally and knew that a boat had run aground shortly before the arrests. In addition, the arrest took place in Laville, Virgin Islands, and thus amounted to a border search, which requires far less justification than an arrest that does not undermine the country`s interest in border security. See United States v. Hyde, 37 F.3d 116, 122 (3d Cir.1994) (“We perceive the interest of the United States in warrantless searches without probable cause at this `internal border` as little different from its interest in such searches at its international borders.”) (with the explanation that the geographical location of the Virgin Islands meant that the police had more leeway to conduct warrantless searches).10 The facts here are far from the circumstances that justified the arrest and arrest in Laville.
2. Detective Suarez testified: “We didn`t know what was happening at that time, all we saw was just the gun and two people walking towards the only person on the porch. That`s why we decided to get out of the vehicle. J.A. at 50 years old. He continued: “We didn`t want to wait for him to pull out the gun completely. We wanted to have the advantage, so we jumped out of our vehicle to make sure they didn`t go any further and tried to keep this gun in their pockets. Id., p. 51. When they saw what they thought was a weapon, the officers got out of their car and approached Navedo, Pozo and Pozo`s companions.
As they approached a fence surrounding the building, officers identified themselves. The officers could clearly see that the item Pozo had in his bag was actually a gun before Pozo quickly threw it into his pocket and fled. Detective Suarez chased Pozo and eventually caught up with him and placed him under arrest. In Laville, Virgin Islands police received a phone call informing them that a boat carrying thirty-two undocumented foreigners had run aground on a reef and that several of the foreigners were coming ashore. Id., p. 189. Laville was later arrested and convicted of conspiracy to bring illegal aliens into the United States for profit. Prior to the trial, Laville attempted to suppress some of the evidence, arguing that he had been arrested without probable cause, and we upheld the District Court`s rejection of this suppression request. Rejecting Laville`s argument that his stop and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, we explained that when Officer Santos arrived at the dock in question, he confirmed that a boat had run aground and ran aground with people on board. Id., p. 194.
A witness pointed to four people who identified themselves as Cubans who were on the stranded boat, and they told the officer that others were still on board. The officer confirmed that the people suspected of being on the boat were “around the corner” and the witness offered to “point them out”. Id., p. 194 (inner quotation marks omitted). Officers then circled the area and saw Laville and his companions flee as officers approached. Id. 194-95. “If we take these facts together with all reasonable conclusions. Santos. had at least a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was taking place.
Id., p. 195 (citation omitted). We explained that this reasonable suspicion would have warranted brief detention to investigate under Terry, even if no additional information was available. Laville`s subsequent attempt to leave, as Santos approached under these circumstances, “elevated Santos` reasonable suspicion to the level of probable reason for arrest.” .