People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338 (Co. 1990).
with:

State v. Rein, 453 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 1990).

People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338 (Co. 1990).

Officer patrolling housing complex, next to a building. He knew the building was home to the leadership of the Bloods street gang, rival of the Crips, and had in the previous week arrested residents of the building for a drive by shooting assault on a member of the Crips. As he rolled by, three people saw him: two fled inside, one stood and watched. After he passed, all three moved quickly to their car, and the one who had stood watching the officer - the defendant - drove it away. The officer followed, radioed in the license plate, and when it stopped he turned on his party lights and approached the vehicle. After being Terry searched, Defendant consented to a car search. Searches revealed gold jewelry and a TV. The officer learned by radio the car was suspected in a burglary 40 blocks away. Subsequent investigation determined the jewelry and TV were the fruits of that burglary.

Held: at the time he approached the car, Officer had no reasonable suspicion of criminality. [Despite consent and apparent flight]. Items turned up in search therefore inadmissible.

State v. Rein, 453 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 1990).

At 10:45 pm, Officer observed two cars leave the highway and enter a business district where no businesses were open. Officer used spotlight to check businesses for suspicious activity, and thereby observed Defendant's truck in a car dealers lot with the other vehicles, with its lights off. Officer observed defendant, in the truck, turn to look at Officer then turn on the lights, back up, and drive away. Officer did not know where the other car he'd seen leave the highway was, or whether there was any connection whatever between the two vehicles. Officer followed and stopped Defendant, who had not been driving erratically at any time, but who nevertheless turned out to smell of alcohol. Defendant failed field sobriety tests. Officer claimed there had been vandalism in the area recently, and that Defendant's behavior was suspicious.

Held: there was sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. ("Although there is no evidence that a crime had been committed at that time, the circumstances were such to suggest that a crime might have been committed or was about to be committed.")

Officer mode of transport is not the salient factor: in Rahming (no reasonable suspicion) the officer was in a car, just like the officer in Rein (reasonable suspicion). Similarly, Rahming and Rein both happened at night. If frequency of crime in the area were the litmus test, moreover, one would expect the opposite results from those obtained.

Stephen P. Gilmartin
Emory Law School