# Roy v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 23, 1987 · 527 A.2d 742

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4947797

## Case

- **Full name:** Phillip D. ROY v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 23, 1987
- **Citations:** 527 A.2d 742; 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 535
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman, Rogers, Steadman
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4947797

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding investigative stop of five individuals illegal when based upon an inarticulable suspicion that one individual had been involved in a crime

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
This is a simple case decided wrongly by the trial court; it does not merit extended discussion. Unless we are to again countenance arrests for investigation in this city, see Lawrence v. United States, 509 A.2d 614, 618-19 (D.C.1986) (Newman J., dissenting), we must declare such dragnet detentions as occurred here constitutionally invalid. To sanction the pat-down of five persons on the unsupportable suspicion that one of them has committed a crime would be to write the Fourth Amendment out of our jurisprudence. What if there had been fifteen men in that room? What if there had been fifty? What if it had been RFK Stadium during a Washington Redskins football game?

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4947797. Public record. Not legal advice.