holding that “[n]othing resembling probable cause existed” when an officer merely observed an individual talking to a number of known narcotics addicts, did not know the nature of the conversations, and saw nothing pass between them; the inference that persons who talk to addicts are engaged in drug trafficking “is simply not the sort of reasonable inference required to support an intrusion by the police upon an individual’s security.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[n]othing resembling probable cause existed” when an officer merely observed an individual talking to a number of known narcotics addicts, did not know the nature of the conversations, and saw nothing pass between them; the inference that persons who talk to addicts are engaged in drug trafficking “is simply not the sort of reasonable inference required to support an intrusion by the police upon an individual’s security.”
- stating 12 that “deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers 13 are strong indicia of mens rea, and when coupled with specific knowledge on the part 14 of the officer relating the suspect to the evidence of crime, they are proper factors to 15 be considered in the decision to make an arrest”
- stating that “deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers are strong indicia of mens rea, and when coupled with specific knowledge on the part of the officer relating the suspect to the evidence of crime, they are proper factors to be considered in the decision to make an arrest”
- explaining that because of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness re- Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5 ALITO, J., dissenting quirement, “[t]he constitutional validity of a warrantless search is pre-eminently the sort of question which can only be decided in the concrete factual context of the individual case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Davis, 08ap-102 (11-6-2008), 2008 Ohio 5756 (2008)
{¶ 20} Defendant's reliance upon Bowyer and Sibron in this case is unavailing because those cases are factually distinguishable from the present case.
Distinguished by United States v. Robert Craig and Peter v. Pappas, United States of America v. Frank P. North, Jr., and Estate of Jack E. Walker, 907 F.2d 653 (1990)
id. at 50-58, 88 S.Ct. at 1896-1900, and its decision is inapposite to the issue in this case.
Distinguished by Nixon v. United States, 1979 D.C. App. LEXIS 382 (1979)
Those decisions, properly reflecting the teaching of Terry and its companion, Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 63-64, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), are inapposite given the context and scope of this particular stop.
Distinguished by State v. Singleton, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2754 (1977)
Sibron, 88 S.Ct. 1889, relied upon by appellant, is distinguishable on facts indicating a search to discover evidence instead of weapons under circumstances not justifying a reasonable fear for the officer’s or others’ safety.
The opinion
Me. Justice Douglas,
concurring in No. 63.
Officer Martin testified that on the night in question he observed appellant Sibron continually from 4 p. m. to 12 midnight and that during that eight-hour period, Sibron conversed with different persons each personally known to Martin as narcotics addicts. When Sibron entered a restaurant, Martin followed him inside where he observed Sibron talking to three other persons also personally known to Martin as narcotics addicts. At that point he approached Sibron and asked him to come outside. When Sibron stepped out, Martin said, “You know what I am after.” Sibron then reached inside his pocket, and at the same time Martin reached into the same pocket and discovered several glassine envelopes which were found to contain heroin. Sibron was subsequently convicted of unlawful possession of heroin.
Consorting with criminals may in a particular factual setting be a basis for believing that a criminal project is underway. Yet talking with addicts without more rises no higher than suspicion. That is all we have here; and if it is sufficient for a “seizure” and a “search,” then there is no such thing as privacy for this vast group of “sick” people.