Monday, February 13, 2012

Colorado Supreme Court People v. Revoal 11SA280

Decision here.

   In this case, Revoal was observed by an officer standing near a closed sandwich shop, looking around, walking towards an open liquor store, and then walking behind the liquor store where it was dark.  The record showed that Revoal could have been walking towards a gas station.  When Revoal saw the police, he turned and walked away.  Police ordered him to stop, and he did.  The officer told him he was going to be searched, and asked him if he had anything illegal.  Revoal admitted that he did.

   Revoal was searched, and marijuana and paraphernalia were found.  He admitted to selling marijuana.  At trial, he argued to suppress the stop.  He also argued to suppress his statements under Miranda, but the court did not address that argument.  The trial court found that there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop and suppressed everything.  The prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The decision lists five specific facts that the police used to justify the stop:
(1) it was 11:30 p.m.;
(2) robberies had recently occurred in the area;
(3) Revoal was standing on the side of a closed Subway, looking left to right;
(4) Revoal walked to the side of an open liquor store, continued looking left to right, then walked toward the back of the liquor store, where it was dark;  and
(5) Revoal  turned and walked away from the investigating officer when he observed the patrol vehicle.

   In his testimony, the officer described Revoal's actions as "aimless."  He also described that Revoal was looking left to right "as if he was looking for something or watching for something," and that this was consistent with the behavior of someone staking out a business or scanning for police.

   Regarding each of the above justifications, the court noted that: despite the late hour, there were business open and other people walking in the area; the past history of crime in an area does not suspend the constitutional rights of people within that area, there is nothing unusual about standing on a street corner or strolling (apparently, that's still a word) up and down the street, and attempting to avoid police contact does not (without more) justify an investigative detention.

   More importantly, the court held that even taken in conjunction with each other these actions were too ambiguous to amount to reasonable suspicion.  The court contrasted this case with others where investigative stops were upheld.  In Terry v. Ohio, the defendants paced along an identical route more than 20 times, repeatedly pausing to stare in the window of the same shop.  In People v. Ratcliff, a known (and wanted) drug dealer walked up to someone in a known drug area and simultaneously exchanged objects.  In People v. Canton, officers were responding to an anonymous tip when they found a large group.  Most of the group scattered when the police arrived, leaving the defendant behind holding a roll of bills. (those last two were Colorado Supreme Court cases).  In each of these cases, the police were able to point to *deliberate* suspicious conduct and supporting evidence.

   The court held that the facts of this case were insufficient to meet reasonable suspicion, making the stop unreasonable.  Accordingly, the weed, paraphernalia, and statements were all suppressed.

No comments:

Post a Comment