holding that the officer’s request for the defendant to place his hands on the police unit without the defendant’s compliance did not | ^constitute a show of authority sufficient to raise the encounter to an investigatory stop under the second tier of Fisher
How later courts described this case
- holding that the officer’s request for the defendant to place his hands on the police unit without the defendant’s compliance did not | ^constitute a show of authority sufficient to raise the encounter to an investigatory stop under the second tier of Fisher
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JASMINE, J.,
concurs with reasons.
hi agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. The majority finds that an investigatory stop did not take place because the defendant did not comply with the officer’s request to place his hands on the police car. In my view, defendant’s compliance with the officers’ request that he walk with them to the car constituted an investigatory stop. The officers gave specific, articulable facts providing reasonable suspicion for conducting this stop, thus the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.