# United States v. Barnes

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 16, 1985 · 496 A.2d 1040

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701121

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Keith W. BARNES, A.K.A. Ricky O. Barnes, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 16, 1985
- **Citations:** 496 A.2d 1040; 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 466
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pryor
- **Judges:** Ferren, Pryor, Fer-Ren, Belson
- **Cited by:** 48 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/9701121

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “if the approach and questioning amounted to a seizure — i.e., physical’ force or a show of authority such that a reasonable person would not believe he was free to leave — that seizure would be unconstitutional, and thus the later, more formal detention and relat…
- concluding that “a situation in which persons unfamiliar to the police are parked in a car late at night in a high crime area does not, without more, present specific, articulable facts warranting suspicion of criminal activity” (quoting Johnson v. United States, 468 A.2d 1325…

## Opinion text

PRYOR, Chief Judge,
concurring:
When viewed from the vantage point of a reasonable law enforcement officer, Peterkin v. United States, 281 A.2d 567, 568 (D.C.1971), the initial encounter in this case, whether consensual or not, was sup *1046 ported by sufficient articulable suspicion to justify the officer’s questioning, which, in turn, escalated to a frisk. While the officer would riot have been justified in frisking appellant initially, his subsequent response, based on evolving facts, was consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
Without accepting all that the majority opinion entails, I would reverse the suppression order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701121. Public record. Not legal advice.