holding police may not seize a person who visits a suspected drug house late at night and who stays for only two minutes based only on neighbor’s complaints of short-stay traffic and where there is no “actual evidence of drugs, controlled buys, reports of known drug users or dealers frequenting the house, and so forth”
How later courts described this case
- holding police may not seize a person who visits a suspected drug house late at night and who stays for only two minutes based only on neighbor’s complaints of short-stay traffic and where there is no “actual evidence of drugs, controlled buys, reports of known drug users or dealers frequenting the house, and so forth”
- "[a] Terry stop requires a well-founded suspicion that the defendant engaged in criminal conduct"
- "[ a] Terry requires a well- founded suspicion that the defendant engaged in criminal conduct "
- presence in a high crime area in and of itself not sufficient to sustain a detention
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chambers, J.
¶19 (concurring) — I agree with the majority that, on the record before us, there were insufficient facts to justify a Terry 4 stop. I write separately to suggest that, in my view, had the record contained more specific facts indicating why this house was designated a “drug house” our analysis might be different. We look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an officer was justified in making an investigatory stop. State *66 v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509, 514 , 806 P.2d 760 (1991). Here, where the only facts suggesting that the house Walter Doughty approached was a drug house are neighbors’ complaints of short stay traffic, the totality of the circumstances do not justify the stop.
¶20 I respectfully concur.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).