The "restraint of the defendant's hand movements [by] the officer displayed a show of authority that would have communicated to a reasonable person that he ... was not free to leave"
How later courts described this case
- The "restraint of the defendant's hand movements [by] the officer displayed a show of authority that would have communicated to a reasonable person that he ... was not free to leave"
- police had reasonable suspicion to seize defendant after observing him clutch hip
- approaching group of youths suspected of drug dealing, officer said, "[H]ang on a second, can I talk to you?"
- “[a] police officer may stop and frisk an individual for the officer’s own safety and the safety of others if the circumstances reasonably suggest that the person is armed and dangerous”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brown, J.
(concurring). Again, we see a situation that comes dangerously close to impermissible conduct on the part of the police. See and compare Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 398 , further appellate review granted, 447 Mass. 1105 (2006). However, I am constrained to concur based on the reasoning of Commonwealth v. Pagan, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 780, 781-783 (2005). Of course, an officer can respond to a hand movement toward a waistband, but I am still amazed how a peculiar gait automatically triggers a stop and an inquiry. 1
It is equally curious and worthy of particular note that here the defendant had a rifle (apparently tucked in his waistband) and in DePeiza, supra, the so-called straight leg gait (allegedly well known by police officers) revealed a handgun. Thus, I am ineluctably led to this conclusion — any walk fits all. In other words, it is the walk, not the type of weapon, that jump starts the stop. Could this be a ploy?