holding that police could stop a car leaving the scene of a shooting in order to question witnesses because “[s]hort of the stop of [the] vehicle, there was no reasonable way in which the officer could obtain immediate information about the shooting which these occupants could reasonably be expected to provide”
How later courts described this case
- holding that police could stop a car leaving the scene of a shooting in order to question witnesses because “[s]hort of the stop of [the] vehicle, there was no reasonable way in which the officer could obtain immediate information about the shooting which these occupants could reasonably be expected to provide”
- concluding that an investigatory motorist stop was reasonable, when the motorist was in one of two cars from which gun shots were heard, and the other car sped off
- “His gun still holstered, [Officer] Schadt asked the driver to stop and directed the three occupants to raise their hands.”
- stop of vehicle upheld where police officer heard gunshots in course of investigating an assault and believed that vehicle’s occupants were either participants in the shooting or witnesses
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. Under the circumstances of this case, the stop of appellant was permitted by the Fourth Amendment. The reasoning in support of this conclusion is contained in all but part II.B.l. of the opinion of Judge FARRELL and in part II of the concurring opinion of Judge Schwelb.