# In re T.T.C.

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · November 14, 1990 · 583 A.2d 986

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4948743

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of T.T.C.
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 14, 1990
- **Citations:** 583 A.2d 986
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Terry
- **Judges:** Rogers, Steadman, Terry
- **Cited by:** 19 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/4948743

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the Supreme Court has recognized that the “balancing of competing interests” is the key principle of the Fourth Amendment and, thus, “the determination of whether police behavior is supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity lies in a …
- holding that passing a small white object in a high crime area, without further evidence of an exchange, is insufficient to support a Terry stop
- finding seizure where police officer held gun at his side and announced his identity to occupants of stationary ear

## Opinion text

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in the opinion of the court. I add these few words simply to emphasize that our reversal here is fact-specific and should not be read too broadly.
For me, at least, the key to the case is to be found in footnote 1 of Chief Judge Rogers’ opinion for the court, particularly the last sentence. It is true that the trial judge explicitly found that Officer Beldon had seen the driver of the car (in which appellant was a passenger) “exchange a small object for something” at the corner of First Street and Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., one of the countless hotbeds of the drug trade in our city. The only testimony about this supposed “exchange,” however, was Officer Beldon’s statement that he saw an exchange of a small white object for currency. The trial judge expressly disbelieved the officer’s testimony that he had seen any currency, which necessarily means that the “something” which the judge found to have been exchanged for the small object was not currency. Since there was no proof that anything other than currency was transferred to the holder of the small white object, it follows that the finding of an exchange of “a small object for something” is not supported by any evidence. On that basis I vote to reverse and join in the court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4948743. Public record. Not legal advice.