holding that when a suspect’s actions are consistent with criminal activity, although also consistent with noncriminal activity, it may justify a brief detention (Terry stop4)
How later courts described this case
- holding that when a suspect’s actions are consistent with criminal activity, although also consistent with noncriminal activity, it may justify a brief detention (Terry stop4)
- holding that if the initial seizure was unlawful, the subsequent search and fruits of that search are inadmissible as fruits of the poisonous tree
- holding that a prior justification to look under driver's seat for weapons implicated the "plain view" doctrine
- explaining that activity consistent with both criminal and noncriminal activity may justify a brief detention
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. DILUZIO, 162 Wash. App. 585 (2011)
¶18 The Doughty court noted that the facts in Kennedy were distinguishable.
Distinguished by State v. Doughty, 170 Wash. 2d 57 (2010)
¶12 Moreover Kennedy is distinguishable.
Distinguished by State v. Bradley, 18 P.3d 602 (2001)
Despite similar furtive movements, Kennedy and Watkins are also distinguishable because the defendants in those cases had companions who remained in the vehicle and could have accessed a weapon.
The opinion
Callow, J.
(dissenting)—I would hold that requiring the defendant to move from his seat and searching the car for items not in plain view went beyond the proper purposes of a Terry stop.