![]() ![]() ![]() Nonetheless, he was held in custody and charged with violating 38.02(a). Officer Venegas replied that he was in a high drug problem area Officer Sotelo then frisked appellant, but found nothing. However, the officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. The officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before. They observed appellant and another man walking in opposite directions away from one another in an alley.Īlthough the two men were a few feet apart when they first were seen, Officer Venegas later testified that both officers believed the two had been together or were about to meet until the patrol car appeared. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 United States v.Ībsent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellants right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.ĭetaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be reasonable. The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before. Reasonable Suspicion Police Plus Court Costs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |