Summary
The Arizona Supreme Court considers whether the Fourth Amendment requires the State to show that circumstances supporting a vehicle stop eliminate a substantial portion of the innocent motoring public. The court holds that reasonable suspicion requires an objectively reasonable, particularized suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, but does not require officers to testify about eliminating innocent explanations or trial courts to make separate findings on that issue.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fourth Amendment requires the State to show that the circumstances supporting an investigatory vehicle stop eliminate a substantial portion of the innocent motoring public.
- Whether officers must expressly rule out innocent explanations for observed conduct or testify about how their observations reduce the possibility that innocent travelers will be subjected to seizures.
- Whether the deputies had reasonable, particularized suspicion under the totality of the circumstances to conduct the investigatory stop.
Holdings
- The Fourth Amendment does not require the State to show that the circumstances supporting an investigatory stop eliminate a substantial portion of the innocent motoring public.
- Officers need not expressly rule out innocent explanations for the conduct they observe, and they need not testify at a suppression hearing about how their observations reduce or eliminate the possibility that innocent travelers will be subjected to seizures. Trial courts likewise need not make separate findings on that issue.
- The deputies had objectively reasonable, particularized suspicion that criminal activity, including an assault or domestic violence event, might be occurring, and the stop was constitutionally justified.
Key quotations
“We hold that reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment does not require officers to testify about how their observations reduce or eliminate the possibility that innocent travelers will be subject to seizures or trial courts to make specific findings on that issue.” (237 Ariz. at 235 ¶ 17)
“It requires only that an officer exercise common sense to determine whether the facts justify an objectively reasonable suspicion.” (237 Ariz. at 235 ¶ 13)
Factual background
Deputy Dana Anderson observed Evans, while stopped at a stop sign, make three rapid closed-fisted arm movements toward the passenger in his truck. Although Anderson did not see physical contact, he believed the conduct could indicate an assault and directed another deputy to turn the patrol car around. The deputies stopped the truck, and the stop ultimately led to Evans's arrest for possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and aggravated driving under the influence.
Procedural history
A Cochise County superior court denied Evans's motion to suppress evidence arising from a vehicle stop. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the deputies' observations supported reasonable suspicion and that no separate showing was required concerning the elimination of innocent conduct. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and affirmed both decisions.